The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Municipal Corporation's actions under sections 299 and 297(1)(b) of the MMC Act were without jurisdiction as the affected land did not fall within the definition of a 'public street' under section 2(x) of the MMC Act.

JUDGEMENT :

R. D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed off by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3350 of 2022 have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 28th February, 2022 issued by the respondent no.2 in respect of the property of the petitioners issued under section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short the MMC Act) intending to take possession of the land bearing CTS No. 345/60, Village Marol, Mumbai – 400 059 lying within the proposed regular line of 13.40M wide Gaodevi Road, Village Marol, Andheri (East) of the public street as prescribed and sanctioned by the Commissioner under section 297(1)(b) of the said MMC Act together with its enclosing wall, hedge fencing, otla or other structure external to a building or any portion of a platform, verandah, step or other such structure which may be found upon the said land.

3. The petitioners have also prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the prescription and sanction of the proposed regular line of the Gaodevi Road between points D to E as prescribed by the Commissioner under section 297(1)(b) of the MMC Act as shown on the plan bearing no. E.E.T. & C/WS/RL/219 dated 11th May, 2020. The petitioners have prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to set aside and cancel the sanction of the proposed regular line of 13.40 M Gaodevi Road between points D to E as prescribed by the Commissioner under section 297(1)(b) of the said MMC Act and to grant inspection of the plan referred to in the impugned notice dated 28th February, 2022.

4. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3351 of 2022 have also prayed for similar reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these two petitions are as under :-

5. The petitioners are the owners of the land bearing CTS No.345/60 of the Revenue Village Marol, at Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ property’). It is the case of the petitioners that the said property is vacant and is in physical possession of the petitioners.

6. As per the Development Plan of the City of Mumbai, 2034, the said property is affected by the reservation of a 13.40 M wide proposed D.P.Road. The said proposed D.P.Road has not been surrendered/handed over by the petitioners to the respondent Corporation till date.

7. On 7th June, 2022, the Director of the petitioner no.1 was served with the notice dated 28th February, 2022 issued by the respondent no.2. In the said notice, it was alleged that the writ property lies within the regular line of 13.40 M wide Gaodevi Road of the ‘Public Street’ as prescribed by the Commissioner under section 297(1)(b) of the MMC Act. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 intended to take possession of the said property within seven days from the date of service of the impugned notice. The said notice was served upon the petitioners with a plan enclosed therein showing the said property affected by the notice hatched in red colour. The respondent no.2 offered the petitioners the inspection of the plan of the said land.

8. On 9th June, 2022, the petitioners sent an interim reply and denied the contents of the impugned notice in toto. The petitioners requested the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant inspection of the plan as offered in the impugned notice and to provide coloured photocopies thereof and also the certified copy of the C.R.No.512 dated 4th March, 2021. The petitioners called upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to act upon the said impugned notice or to take steps in pursuance thereof until such inspection and certified copies are granted. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 neither offered inspection of the plan of the land referred to in the impugned notice nor furnished the photocopies of t