Case Note & Summary
This writ petition before the Bombay High Court arose from a challenge by a developer to the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) sanctioning a new road line of 13.40 metres width through land being developed under a slum rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner, Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., owned property bearing CTS No.610A/1B/1 and 610A/1B/2 at Village-Malad, measuring 6344.04 sq.mtrs. The land was earlier partly occupied by slum dwellers and tenants. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) had sanctioned a layout of six buildings, approved amalgamation of slum and non-slum portions, and issued a Letter of Intent dated 20 April 2022. The petitioner was in the process of completing several buildings on the plot when respondent No.4-Sahayog SRA Co-operative Housing Society and respondent No.5-Developer submitted a proposal for a slum rehabilitation scheme on an adjoining plot. To make that scheme viable, a new 13.40 metre road line was proposed through the petitioner's plot, on the representation that the adjoining plot was landlocked. MCGM sought remarks from SRA, which on 5 August 2024 recommended the road line without mentioning the petitioner's ongoing scheme. MCGM then exercised powers under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and by Resolution No.592 dated 26 September 2024 sanctioned the road line. The SRA accepted the adjoining society's slum rehabilitation scheme on 11 October 2024. The petitioner made representations on 8 and 14 November 2024. Subsequently, SRA admitted that its earlier letter had erroneously missed out the fact of the petitioner's ongoing scheme, and by letters dated 17 January 2025 and 11 February 2025 requested MCGM to grant a hearing to both parties and to superimpose the road line on the approved layout. The petitioner challenged the sanction primarily on grounds of violation of natural justice and non-application of mind, contending that no hearing was given and that the road line cut through existing buildings and a recreational ground. The sketch showed that building 'C' was fully affected, building 'B1' partly affected, and the open space around building 'B' seriously compromised. Respondents argued that MCGM had jurisdiction under Section 291, that the action was bona fide, that only alignment of an existing road was altered, that the petitioner could seek shifting of alignment under DCPR 2034 or Section 297, and that no hearing was required under Section 291, relying on Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra. MCGM submitted that it acted on SRA's no objection and would consider a modified alignment if SRA reconsidered. SRA submitted that it had no role in the impugned decision. Up to paragraph 15, the Court examined the sequence and noted that the new road line was superimposed on the petitioner's approved layout, adversely affecting buildings and open spaces. The Court took note of SRA's admission of mistake and its recommendation for hearing, observing that MCGM had not acted despite these letters. The extract provided does not record the final operative decision of the Court; the judgment text ends at paragraph 15 with the observation that MCGM had not acted on its own despite two SRA letters.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Sanction of Public Street/New Road Line - Section 291, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Power and Procedural Validity - MCGM exercised power under Section 291 to sanction 13.40 metre road line after SRA's no objection; challenge raised that sanction affected petitioner's existing SRA-approved buildings and open spaces without hearing. SRA later admitted mistake and requested hearing. Court examined whether sanction was vitiated by non-application of mind and natural justice (Paras 10-15).
B) Slum Rehabilitation - Planning Authority Approval - Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034, Regulation 33(10), Clause 7.1 and Section 297, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Alternative Remedies - Respondents argued petitioner had remedy of seeking shifting of alignment under DCPR 2034 or fresh road line under Section 297; Court considered but not decided in provided extract (Paras 5-6, 15).
C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - No Right of Hearing under Section 291 - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 291 - Petitioners' right to be heard before road line sanction - SRA recommended hearing to both parties; Court noted SRA's correspondence highlighted procedural requirement (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sanctioning of a 13.40 meter road line through the petitioner's land under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and non-application of mind, particularly after the Slum Rehabilitation Authority admitted its no-objection was erroneous; and whether the impugned decision and resolution should be set aside.
Law Points
- MCGM has power under Section 291 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888 to sanction new road lines
- exercise of such power must consider existing approved slum rehabilitation layouts
- principles of natural justice and non-application of mind apply to decisions affecting land development
- SRA's erroneous no objection and subsequent recommendation for hearing indicate procedural irregularity
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 33
WRIT PETITION NO.2207 OF 2025
Alok Aradhe, CJ., Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Aspi Chinoy, Ashish Kamat, Bhushan Deshmukh, Shailendra Singh, Rahul Pandey, Ismail Shiakh, Milind Sathe, Gaurav Mehta, Shamima Taly, Sehyr Taly, Mayur Khandeparkar, Aditya Miskita, Aziz Mohd., Oorja Dhond, Komal Punjabi, Ravleen Sabharwal, Prakhar Tandon, Aarushi Yadav, Mandar B. Waidande
Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
Municipal Commissioner and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging MCGM's decision sanctioning new road line of 13.40 metres width through petitioner's land being developed under slum rehabilitation scheme, and subsequent resolution and communications implementing the sanction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned resolution and decisions, and deletion of the 13.40 metre road line from its land.
Filing Reason
Petitioner filed petition after SRA admitted error in its no-objection but MCGM did not delete the sanctioned RL, which affected buildings and recreational grounds on petitioner's plot.
Issues
Whether sanctioning of new road line under Section 291 of MMC Act without hearing petitioner violates principles of natural justice.
Whether the decision suffers from non-application of mind by failing to consider existing SRA-approved development on petitioner's plot.
Whether MCGM has jurisdiction and exercise of power was valid despite subsequent admission of mistake by SRA.
Whether alternative remedies under Section 297 or DCPR 2034 preclude writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that impugned decision violated natural justice as no hearing was given; decision suffered from non-application of mind as SRA and MCGM ignored existing buildings; SRA admitted mistake; road cut through buildings B, B1 and recreational ground; other access road available; same developer could provide internal access road.
Respondent No.4 Society argued MCGM has jurisdiction under Section 291 to sanction new road to landlocked property; power exercised bona fide; only alignment of existing road altered; decision taken after due consultation with SRA; petition to be dismissed.
Respondent No.5 Developer argued there is already existing road on petitioner's plot and only change of alignment; petitioner has remedy under Section 297 for fresh RL and under Regulation 33(10), Clause 7.1 of DCPR 2034 for shifting alignment; no right of hearing under Section 291; relied on Dr. Abraham Patani case.
MCGM submitted that it sanctioned RL based on SRA no objection; willing to entertain modified alignment if SRA reconsiders.
SRA submitted that impugned decision was taken by MCGM under Section 291 and SRA had no role; submits to jurisdiction of this Court.
Ratio Decidendi
As per the extract, the Court observed that SRA's subsequent admission of mistake and recommendation for hearing raised serious concerns about validity of sanction under Section 291; natural justice and non-application of mind principles apply.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) taken in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) sanctioning new Road Line (RL) of 13.40 meters width in the land being developed by the Petitioner.
Thus, Deputy Chief Engineer (Traffic), BMC is requested to give hearing to both the parties i.e. complainant M/s. Raghvendra Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the applicant M/s. Harsiddh Corporation as per suitable provisions of MMC Act 1888
The new RL is superimposed on the said map. The said sketch clearly indicates that sanctioning of new RL would clearly mar construction of some of the buildings of the Petitioner on its plot.
SRA has apparently realized its mistake in not taking into consideration the factum of implementation of SR Scheme on Petitioner's land
Procedural History
8 February 2005: Petitioner purchased property CTS No.610A/1B/1 and 610A/1B/2 at Village-Malad; land partly occupied by slum dwellers and tenants. SRA sanctioned layout of 6 buildings; later approved amalgamation and issued LoI dated 20 April 2022. 7 December 2023: Respondent No.5-Developer and Respondent No.4-Society submitted proposal to SRA for SR Scheme on adjoining plot CTS No.677/A/1(part). 31 July 2024: Executive Engineer (Traffic & Coordination) WS of MCGM sought remarks from SRA. 5 August 2024: SRA Executive Engineer recommended 13.40 metre RL. 26 August 2024: Proposal for declaration of public street before Deputy Chief Engineer, Traffic. 21 September 2024: Municipal Commissioner sanctioned proposal. 26 September 2024: MCGM Administrator passed Resolution No.592 authorizing Municipal Commissioner under Section 291(a). 1 October 2024: Deputy Chief Engineer (Traffic) submitted plan for declaration of public street. 3 October 2024: Executive Engineer forwarded sanctioned RL plan to various departments. 11 October 2024: SRA accepted SR scheme of Respondent No.4. 8 and 14 November 2024: Petitioner made representations. Thereafter SRA Deputy Chief Engineer communicated error in 5 August 2024 letter. 17 January 2025: SRA requested MCGM to grant hearing to both parties. 11 February 2025: SRA requested superimposition of RL on approved layout and hearing. Petition filed challenging impugned decision.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 291, Section 294, Section 297
- Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034: Regulation 33(10), Clause 7.1
