Point of Law: Section 210 (1) (a) empowers the Commissioner to prescribe a street line for the first time without the prior approval of the Standing Committee (as has been done in the present case). It is only under Section 210 (1) (b) of the Act, where the Commissioner prescribes a fresh line in substitution of the street line prescribed for the first time under Section 210 (1) (a) of the Act that the approval of the Standing Committee is required.

JUDGMENT :

1. This group of Writ Petitions impugn an Order dated 25th November, 2020 passed by Respondent No.3 - The Designated Officer & Ward Officer of Respondent No. 1 Corporation (impugned Order) passed under Section 212 (2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (the Act).

2. The brief facts leading to the fling of these Writ Petitions are as under :

2.1. The Petitioners claim to be owners of certain lands within the limits of Respondent No.1 Corporation. On these lands, the Petitioners’ have built structures thereon (structures).

2.2. In and around September, 2018, Respondent No.1 Corporation’s officers visited the structures and marked a wall with red colour.

2.3. On 29th October, 2018, Respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the Petitioners under Section 212 (1) of the Act. In the said notice, it was alleged that the Development Plan of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation was sanctioned on 3rd September, 2005 and in the said Development Plan, Subhash Road, Dombivali West (Hanuman Temple to Hemant General Store) (the said road) was shown 18 mtrs wide. The said notice further alleges that Respondent No.1 Corporation after carrying out the survey has drawn the regular line of the street. As per the said regular line of the street, the area admeasuring 56 sq.mtrs. of 5 shops on the right side of the road is coming in the way of road widening of the said street and therefore, it is necessary to demolish the area mentioned in the said notice and compensation by way of T.D.R./F.S.I. or cash would be payable in accordance with Section 216 of the Act.

2.4. On 17th November, 2018, the Petitioners claim to have visited Respondent No. 3’s office and tendered their reply/objections to the notice.

2.5. On 13th November, 2018, an Application was made to the Information Officer of Ward No. 7H seeking information inter alia about the action taken in order to prescribe the street line under Section 210 of the Act (RTI Application).

2.6. In response to the RTI Application, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 98466 of 2020 was informed on 29th November, 2018 that since no action under Section 210 of the Act is taken, the street line is notified/decided.

2.7. Apprehending demolition, the Petitioners fled the Writ Petitions before this Court. At the hearing of the Writ Petitions on 29th November, 2018, the following Order came to be passed :

“Heard Mr.Oak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the Corporation.

2. By these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the notice issued under Section 212 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.

3. Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the Corporation, at the outset, submitted that the petitions are premature inasmuch as the proposal to acquire the land if it falls within regular line of public street will have to be approved by the standing committee. He submitted that once the proposal is approved, then again 15 days fresh notice would be issued to the petitioners under Section 212 (2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act and, in the event, the petitioners are aggrieved by such notice, they can approach this Court afresh. The statement is accepted.

4. In the light of the statement made by Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the Corporation, Mr. Oak, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought leave to withdraw the petitions with liberty to approach this Court, in the event, the respondent - Corporation issues notice under Section 212 (2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. Leave as sought, is granted. The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.”

2.8. On 21st February, 2019, Respondent No. 3 passed an Order directing the Petitioners to remove the structures. Being aggrieved by this Order, the Petitioners fled Writ Petitions.

2.9. At the hearing of the Writ Petitions held on 11th February, 2020, the following order came to be passed :

“1. The learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the notice dated 29th October, 2018 an