1. Challenge to notices for taking possession of open land for road widening under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1434
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (East-I) – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Bihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6745 of 2009
Decided On : 28-04-2022
Advocates appeared:
Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Advocate, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Tanvi Kakar, Advocate, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding the regular line of the street for public interest and found that the impugned notices were legal under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act - Section 299, 488 - The court upheld the impugned notices issued under Section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, for taking possession of land. The appellant's contentions regarding compensation, absence of sanction, and violation of Section 297 were dismissed. The court also directed the processing of compensation for the earlier surrender of land.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public body, challenged the notices issued under Section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, for taking possession of land. The appellant had earlier surrendered a portion of its land for road widening purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notices were legal and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition. It also directed the processing of compensation for the earlier surrender of land by the appellant.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's claim for compensation, absence of sanction under Section 299(2), and violation of Section 297 regarding the fixation of the regular line of the street.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned notices were legal, and the appellant's contentions regarding compensation, absence of sanction, and violation of Section 297 were not upheld. The court also directed the processing of compensation for the earlier surrender of land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the dismissal of the writ petition was confirmed. The court directed the processing of compensation for the earlier surrender of land by the appellant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over government sanction under Section 299(2), compliance with Section 297 public notice mandates, and non-payment of compensation for prior land surrender. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Analysis of statutory corporations versus registered companies, the primacy of public interest in traffic management, and the validity of the prescribed regular street line. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not a corporation constituted by law requiring government sanction for land acquisition under Section 299(2) of the MMC Act. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed and writ petition dismissal confirmed, with directions to process compensation applications for previous land surrender under Section 301. (Para 15 )
6. Does a company registered under the Companies Act require government sanction for land acquisition under Section 299(2) of the MMC Act?
No. The court distinguished between a corporate body owing its birth to a law (statutory corporation) and a body corporate created under the law (registered company). A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not a corporation constituted by law requiring such sanction. (Para 11 )
7. Can the presence of external structures like platforms or verandahs prevent land acquisition under Section 299(1) of the MMC Act?
No. Section 299(1) prohibits acquisition only if the land is occupied by a building. It specifically allows the Commissioner to take possession of platforms, verandahs, steps, or other structures external to a building. (Para 14 )
8. Does the non-payment of compensation for a previous land surrender invalidate subsequent notices for land acquisition under the MMC Act?
No. Compensation is a separate matter governed by the procedure under Section 301. Grievances regarding non-payment of compensation for prior surrenders cannot be used to impugn the legality of current acquisition notices. (Para 9 )
9. What is the effect of the regular line of the street on the power to acquire land under Section 299?
The invocation of power under Section 299 is based on the existence of a regular line of a street. Once the line is fixed following the procedure under Section 297, the Commissioner may take possession of open land within that line. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J. - The appellant challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 791 of 2008 filed by it. The relief sought by the appellant is as follows:
"a) that this Hon'ble court may issue writ of certiorari or any other order, or direction writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside the said impugned Notices dated 27.9.2006 and 01.03.2008 issued by the Respondents under Section 299 and 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888."
2. Having regard to the nature of the order passed viz., essentially its length, we deem it apposite to refer to it:
"Heard.
2. The road line was fixed by the Municipal Corporation long back in the year 1988 by following the procedure under section 297 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, now the respondents have taken action under section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, for taking possession of the land.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already surrendered a portion of its land. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, that it was for road widening. Now the land is being taken for curvature of VN Purav Marg and RC Marg.
4. We find that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has taken the right action. No interference is called for therein.
5. The writ petition is rejected."
3. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior advocate, and also Ms. Rashmi Malhotra learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, as also, Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent.
4 Before we refer to the submissions of the parties, we may set out the facts as are necessary.
5. The predecessor in interest of the appellant viz., Bombay Telephones, received notice dated 14.03.1986 calling upon it to hand over the open set back land at Chembur Telephone Exchange Building for road widening purposes. There is a reference to detailed correspondence for some time and finally 387.5 square meters of area came to be surrendered. Nearly a decade thereafter, the appellant was served with notice dated 27.09.2006 under Section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for brevity). The said notice was for fresh proceedings for taking possession of land, admeasuring 308.37 square meters forming part of plot bearing CTS 1666 of Village Chembur, under Section 299 of the Act. The appellant replied by notice dated 17.11.2006. We may set out the terms of the notice:
"This has reference to the meeting held with you and our ED, (CGM (D), MTNL - Mumbai alongwith other senior Officers of MTNL, Mumbai on 16.11.2006 in Chembur on the subject mentioned above. In the above matter, it is mentioned that we have received your Notice dated 27.9.2006 issued under section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888, You are also aware that the said notice is replied to, by our Deputy General Manager (Chambur) vide his letter dated 4.11.2006 by General Manager (East-I) vide his letter dated 20-10-2006. You are also aware that Executive Director of MTNL, vide his letter dated 30.10.2006 (copy enclosed) has requested Municipal Commissioner of MMC to re-examine the issue of your Notice dated 27.9.2006.
You will appreciate that as per the provisions of clause 2 of the section 299 of the said Act.
The said clause 2 of section 299 of MMC Act, 1888 reads as follows:
"Provided that when the land or building, is vested in the (Government) possession shall not be taken as aforesaid without the previous Sanction of the Government concerned and when, the land or building is vested in any corporation constituted by Royal Charter or by an act of Parliament, (of the United Kingdom), or (by an Indian law) possession shall not be taken as aforesaid without the previous sanction of (the State) Government".
Please note that MTNL, is a Central Government established under
