IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.C. Dharmadhikari, R.I. Chagla, JJ.
Sadanand Shankar Mane - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 841 of 2012, 1063 of 2013; Public Interest Litigation No. 3 of 2011
Decided On : 15-11-2019
Constitutional Validity - MMRDA Act - Section 17(2) and 32(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) involve common questions of fact and law. The petitioners challenged the Constitutional validity of Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 (MMRDA Act). The petitioners claimed a right in the immovable property, and the MMRDA was claiming itself as a "Nodal Agency" for construction and widening of the existing Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road. The MMRDA had initiated acquisition proceedings under the MMRDA Act for acquiring a portion of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the MMRDA Act did not displace or take over the municipal governance or a unit of self-government like the Municipal Corporation. The Court held that the MMRDA Act only supplements the efforts of the Municipal Corporation to provide amenities within its territorial limits. The Court also noted that the legal fiction created by the MMRDA Act was for a limited purpose and did not extend beyond the purpose for which it was created.
Issues: The main issue was the challenge to the Constitutional validity of Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the MMRDA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the MMRDA Act did not displace or take over the municipal governance or a unit of self-government like the Municipal Corporation. The legal fiction created by the MMRDA Act was for a limited purpose and did not extend beyond the purpose for which it was created.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions and the PIL, finding no merit in the petitions.
JUDGMENT :
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
The writ petitions and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) involve common questions of fact and law. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. We take, for the sake of convenience, the facts from Writ Petition No. 841 of 2012.
2. By this petition (WP/841/2012) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 (for short, "the MMRDA Act").
3. We have noted that on this writ petition, detailed orders have been passed by this Court earlier. It is in these circumstances and in view of the order dated 19th March, 2012 and further orders, we grant Rule on these petitions. Since affidavits have been filed and detailed arguments have been canvassed, with the consent of the parties, we dispose of the petitions finally.
4. The petitioners in this case are citizens of India. They have their premises located at the addresses mentioned in the cause title. These premises are in a chawl type structure, which is situate on part of plot bearing CTS No.185-A of village-Asalpha, Ghatkopar, Mumbai Suburban District. The petitioner Nos.1 to 7 claim to be the co-owners of this chawl/structures/property and the land admeasures about 484.80 sq.mtrs. The entire description is set out at Exhibit 'A' to the petition with the copy of the property card and a sketch map.
5. It is claimed that petitioner No.8 is a registered Trust. There is a temple, which is administered and managed by this Trust. The land on which this temple stands was leased by the original owners to the Managing Committee of the temple. The lease is of 100 years. The Trust, therefore says that, it is in possession of the land and the structure, namely, the temple. With this, petitioners claim a right in the immovable property.
6. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent is the Urban Development Department. This Department has initiated acquisition proceedings under the MMRDA Act for acquiring 310 sq.mtr. out of total 739 sq.mtrs. of the property. The third respondent is the Collector of Mumbai Suburban District and is claiming to be a "competent authority" for the purpose of Section 32(1) of the MMRDA Act. The fourth respondent is the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short, "MMRDA"). It is appointed as a "Special Planning Authority" under Section 40(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, "the MRTP Act") in respect of the "Undeveloped Notified Area" as defined under Section 2(31-A) of the MRTP Act. As per Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act, the MMRDA is deemed Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. The fifth respondent is the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, whereas the sixth respondent is the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, who has issued the show cause notice dated 25th April, 2011 and final notification dated 27th December, 2011.
7. Now, that notification, copy of which is annexed to the petition, needs to be referred in some details. It reads as under:-
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated the 26th December 2011
NOTIFICATION
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974
No. MRD. 3311/ C.R.126/UD-7. - Whereas, on representation from Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority established under section 3 of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 (Mah. IV of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Authority"); it appears to the State Government that, in order to carry out the widening of Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road under the Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project in Mumbai Suburban District by the said Authority, it is necessary to acquire the certain land, spec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.