Century Textiles and Industries Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 129

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. KATHAWALLA, B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 295 of 2017
Decided on : 14-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy and Ms. Nandini H. Joshi, Mr. Jehangir Mistry and Ms. Namrata Parikh instructed by Harish Joshi and Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Reis, Ms. Yamuna Parekh and Ms. Rupali Adhate, Mr. L.T. Satelkar, AGP

Headnote:(A) City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898 - Section 32I(2) - City of Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 - Section 51(2) - Writ of Mandamus sought by appellant against Municipal Corporation to recognize ownership of Premises after lease expiration - Court affirmed that appellant entitled to property vesting as per statutory provisions, having complied with necessary conditions and local government’s indications of ownership. (Paras 1, 6.1-7.8)

(B) Lease Expiration - Status post-lease - Court held continued possession and lack of demand for rent by the Municipal Corporation affirms owner's rights - Failure to recognize these rights contradicts statutory obligations. (Paras 6.1-7.8)

(C) Procedural Defenses - Respondent's claims regarding delays, inadequacies, and authenticity of documents dismissed based on statutory duties to convey property and the lack of well-founded reasons for denying conveyance. (Paras 6.1-7.8) Fact of the case: Petition for Mandamus filed by Century Textile and Industries Limited regarding plot C.S. No. 1546 claiming it as vested post-expiry of the lease under the improvement statutes.

Findings of Court:
Court determined formal conveyance rights under statutory law, rejecting claims about procedural delays and conduct lapses of appellants.

Issues: Main issues centered on statutory interpretation of vesting rights upon lease expiration and entitlement to conveyance after compliance with Scheme alterations.

Ratio Decidendi: Court found that upon satisfaction of requirements, the right to a formal conveyance is indefeasible, supported by statutory provisions regardless of subsequent procedural challenges posed by the Municipal Corporation.

Result: Petition granted, mandating execution of formal conveyance within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks writ of mandamus (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners' rights to ownership of land (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of statutes and cases (Para 5 , 6)
4. formal conveyance of land rights established (Para 7)
5. order for execution of formal conveyance (Para 8)

JUDGMENT :

S.J. Kathawalla, B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.

INDEX

Sr. Nos.	Description	Page Nos.
1.	Introduction	3
2	Facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition	4-18
3	The Petitioners’ Submissions	18-23
4	Respondent No.1’s Submissions	23-33
5	Scheme of the Acts	33-36
6	Analysis	36-80
7	Conclusion	80-83

1. INTRODUCTION:

1.1 This Petition inter alia seeks a Writ of Mandamus against Respondent No.1 (“MCGM”) to (i) recognize Petitioner No.1/Century Textile and Industries Limited as the absolute owner of plot bearing C.S. No. 1546 of Lower Parel Division and the buildings standing thereon (collectively referred to as the “said Premises”); and (ii) to do all such acts and things as may be necessary for formalizing the vesting of the said Premises in Petitioner No. 1.

2. FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THIS WRIT PETITION:

2.1 The CITY OF BOMBAY IMPROVEMENT ACT , 1898 as amended by the City of Bombay Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1913 (the “1898 Act”) provided for poorer classes accommodation schemes for necessitous employee members. Under Section 32G of the 1898 Act, land and buildings covered by such schemes are leased to employers for a period of 28 years. As per Section 32I (2) of the 1898 Act, where no default is made in the conditions of the lease, upon determination of the lease period, the right, title, and interest in and to the land and the buildings built there upon, would automatically vest in the employer. Section 32I (2) of the 1898 Act reads as under:

“(2) Where no default is made in the conditions of the lease, then on the determination of the lease all the right, title and interest of the Board in and to the dwellings and in and to the land on which the dwellings are constructed shall vest in the employer free from all liabilities created by this Act.”

2.2 On 12th April, 1918, Petitioner No. 1 applied to the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay (the “Trustees”) for a scheme to provide dwellings for poorer classes under Section 32B of the 1898 Act.

2.3 On 16th April, 1918, pursuant to Section 32B (2) of the 1898 Act, the Trustees passed Resolution No. 121 and proceeded to make a poorer classes accommodation scheme which provided (amongst other things) for the acquisition of land by the board and for construction thereon by Petitioner No. 1 (as Lessee) of 44 blocks of poorer classes dwellings containing 980 rooms and 20 shops.

2.4 Pursuant to Resolution No. 121, on 1st May, 1918, the Trustees notified the Poorer Classes Accommodation Scheme as Scheme No.51 (“the Scheme”).

2.5 On 16th August, 1919, the Sp. Collector appointed by the local government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquired the said land admeasuring 57,758 sq. yards from the then owners. A total amount of Rs.1,65,692/- required for acquiring the said lands were paid over by Petitioner No. 1 to the Improvement Trust Board. On 13th January, 1919, a sum of Rs. 39,000/- was paid and on 20th May, 1927, a sum of Rs. 1,26,692/- was paid by Petitioner No. 1 to the Improvement Trust Board. These monies paid over by the Petitioner were in turn paid to the owners of these lands.

2.6 Possession was thereafter handed over to Petitioner No. 1 between the years 1919 and 1925.

2.7 In 1925, the 1898 Act was repealed and replaced by the City of Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act , 1925 (the “1925 Act”). Section 4 of the 1925 Act inter alia provided that the repeal of the 1898 Act shall not affect the validity or invalidity of anything already done under the 1898 Act. Section 55 of the 1925 Act required all schemes sanctioned o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2022 Supreme(Bom) 129

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYS.J. KATHAWALLA, B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others - AppellantVersusMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others - RespondentsWrit Petition No. 295 of 2017Decided on : 14-03-2022

Cases Referred (23)

Judicial Analysis

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. KATHAWALLA, B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 295 of 2017
Decided on : 14-03-2022