SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Online)(SC) 89

SUPREME COURT
K. Ramaswamy, S. B. Majmudar, JJ
Municipal Corporation Bombay v. Industrial D. and I. Co. P. Ltd.
Appeal No. 120 of 1988 | Writ Petition



Public land designated for a specific purpose cannot be acquired if re-designated for another use, and inaction by claimants can result in dismissal of subsequent challenges based on laches.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 6 and 11 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 126 - Appeal against the Bombay High Court decision quashing acquisition notice - The land could not be acquired as it was derecognized for public purpose under the revised development plan - Once the land was de-reserved from its earlier designation for a public purpose, the acquisition proposal under Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act fell through. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 20)

(B) Delay in challenging acquisition proceeding - Claimants did not raise objections in a timely manner, leading to dismissal based on laches - The High Court’s discretion under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be judiciously exercised, and long delays should not allow undercutting finalized proceedings. (Paras 23-29)

Facts of the case:
The appellant corporation sought to acquire land marked for sewage purification expansion as per a development plan approved in 1967; however, by 1979, the land was re-designated in a new plan for residential and commercial use, invalidating its acquisition status.

Findings of Court:
The court reiterated that a public purpose specified in the development plan must remain in order for the land to be validly acquired; concluded that public purpose was extinguished upon de-reservation.

Issues: Whether the land in question remained validly reserved for a public purpose for acquisition, and whether the delay in filing the writ petition warranted dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the acquisition was void as the public purpose ceased to exist post de-reservation, necessitating a new proposal if the land was to be acquired for a different purpose.

Result: The appeal is allowed; the impugned writ petition is dismissed on grounds of delay and failure to object timely.

1 This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1988 in Appeal No. 120 of 1988 of the Bombay High Court reversing the judgment and order of the learned single Judge and quashing the award passed under S.11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and the notification dated 6th September 1972 issued under S.6 of the Act read with S.126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (for short, the 'MRTP Act') as inoperative. It was also held that the land in question could not be acquired under the Act. It was also further declared that all steps taken for taking possession and vesting of plot of land bearing CS No. 503. Dharavi Division, Bombay, in pursuance of the said award were illegal.

2 A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be noted at the outset. On 6th January 1967 a draft development plan for 'G' Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation was sanctioned by the State of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under S.31 sub-s.(1) of the MRTP Act. The said draft development plan was earlier prepared by the then planning authority, namely, the Municipal Corporation of Bombay as per the provisions found in Chap.3 of the MRTP Act dealing with the preparation, submission and sanction to development plan. It is not in dispute between the parties that necessary gamut enjoined by S.21 to 30 of the MRTP Act was gone through by the then planning authority functioning under the Act and that ultimately culminated into the sanctioned draft development plan by the State Government under S.31(1) of the MRTP Act as aforesaid. This sanctioned draft development plan for 'G' Ward of the Municipal Corporation of Bombay came into force on 7th February, 1967. It is also not in dispute between the parties that city survey No. 503 Dharavi with which we are concerned in the present proceedings formed part of the said Ward 'G' and, therefore, was naturally covered by the aforesaid sanctioned development plan. The said city survey plot No. 503 Dharavi is a large piece of land owned by the 6th respondent, the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. which belongs to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Some portion of the said land, to be precise an area ad measuring 20,397 sq. yds. was leased out by the 5th respondent to 1st respondent herein. It was using the same for the business of manufacture of art silk and rayon textiles and processing of textiles. The appellant, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay which was original 3rd respondent in the writ petition has a Sewage Purification Plant at Dharavi. With the increase in the population and the area under control of the appellant Corporation it became necessary to extend the Dharavi Sewage Purification Works. In the year 1963, it was decided at a meeting of the Standing Committee of the appellant Corporation to acquire City Survey No. 503. The said requisite proposal was taken note of in the aforesaid Development Plan prepared under the MRTP Act. In the said plan, City Survey No. 503 was designated and shown as reserved for extension of the Dharavi Sewage Purification Works. As noted above, the said plan came into force w.e.f. February 7, 1967. On the basis of the aforesaid reservation of this land in the said plan for the extension of Dharavi Sewage Purification Works belonging to the appellant Corporation, the appellant Corporation, being the then planning authority sought to acquire the said land for the purpose of extension of Dharavi Sewage Purification Plant as per S.126(1) of the MRTP Act and the State Government of Maharashtra being satisfied that the land specified in the application was needed for the public purpose the rein specified, issued the requisite notification dated July 6, 1972 under S.126(2) of the MRTP Act read with S.6 of the Act. The said provisions of S.126 read as under:
"126. (1) When after the publication of a draft Regional plan, a Development or any other plan or town planning scheme, any land is require





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top