Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Railway's Refusal to Grant NOC for Redevelopment of Cooperative Housing Society. Held that Railway land vests in the President of India and the Railway has no authority to demand NOC for redevelopment on land owned by MHADA.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Vinobha Bhave Nagar Godavari Adhyapak Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and M/s. Nisar Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the refusal of the Central Railway (Respondent No. 1) to grant a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for the redevelopment of the existing building of Petitioner No. 1. The building is situated on land owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), Respondent No. 2. The Central Railway had refused the NOC through letters dated 30 August 2018, 17 October 2018, and 23 April 2019, on the ground that the building falls within the railway's safety zone and that the land was originally acquired for railway purposes. The petitioners sought a declaration that the impugned letters were illegal and arbitrary, and a direction to the Railway to grant the NOC. The court examined the history of the land, noting that it was originally acquired by the British Government for the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company in 1853, but later, after various transfers, the land was vested in the President of India under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the specific plot in question was transferred to the Maharashtra Housing Board (predecessor of MHADA) in 1962, and MHADA constructed the building in 1965. The court held that the land vests in the President of India, not in the Railway, and the Railway has no right, title, or interest in the land. The Railway's power under Section 16 of the Railway Act, 1989 to regulate building activities is limited to land owned by the Railway or the Central Government. Since the land is owned by MHADA, the Railway cannot demand an NOC. The court also rejected the Railway's claim of an easementary right of way, as the building existed prior to the railway line. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned letters, and directed the Railway to grant the NOC within four weeks.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - Petition challenging refusal of NOC by Central Railway for redevelopment of building on MHADA land - Held that the petition is maintainable as the Railway's action is arbitrary and without authority of law (Paras 1-2).

B) Property Law - Ownership and Title - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Vesting of land - Land acquired for railway purposes vests in the President of India, not in the Railway - Held that the Railway has no right, title or interest in the land and cannot demand NOC for redevelopment (Paras 10-15).

C) Railway Law - Safety Zone - Railway Act, 1989 - Section 16 - Power to restrict building within railway limits - Held that the Railway's power to regulate building activities is limited to land owned by the Railway or the Central Government, and does not extend to land owned by MHADA (Paras 16-20).

D) Easements Law - Right of Way - Easements Act, 1882 - Section 13 - Necessity - Held that the Railway has no easementary right over the land in question as the land was not transferred to the Railway and the building existed prior to the railway line (Paras 21-25).

E) Housing Law - Redevelopment - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - MHADA's ownership - Held that MHADA is the owner of the land and has granted permission for redevelopment; the Railway cannot obstruct the same (Paras 26-30).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Central Railway can refuse to grant a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for redevelopment of a building constructed on land owned by MHADA, on the ground that the building is within the railway's safety zone and that the land was originally acquired for railway purposes.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated 30 August 2018, 17 October 2018, and 23 April 2019 are quashed and set aside. The Central Railway is directed to grant the No-Objection Certificate for redevelopment within four weeks from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Land Acquisition Act
  • 1894
  • Railway Act
  • 1989
  • Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882
  • Easements Act
  • Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
  • 1976
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (12) 26

Writ Petition (L) No. 969 of 2020

2020-12-03

S.J. Kathawalla, Madhav J. Jamdar

Mr. Amrut Joshi alongwith Ms. Pooja Batra instructed by Mr. Pratik Amin for the Petitioners, Mr. T.J. Pandian for Respondent No. 1/Central Railway, Mr. P.G. Lad alongwith Mrs. Aparna Kalathil and Ms. Sayali Apte for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/MHADA, Mr. Abhay Patki, Addl. G.P. alongwith Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for Respondent No. 4/State

Vinobha Bhave Nagar Godavari Adhyapak Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and M/s. Nisar Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Central Railway, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of Central Railway to grant No-Objection Certificate for redevelopment of a building.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of impugned letters refusing NOC and direction to Central Railway to grant NOC for redevelopment.

Filing Reason

Central Railway refused to grant NOC for redevelopment of the building of Petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the building falls within railway safety zone and land was originally acquired for railway purposes.

Issues

Whether the Central Railway has the authority to refuse NOC for redevelopment of a building constructed on land owned by MHADA? Whether the land in question vests in the President of India or the Central Railway? Whether the Railway's power under Section 16 of the Railway Act, 1989 extends to land not owned by the Railway or the Central Government? Whether the Railway has an easementary right over the land in question?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the land is owned by MHADA and the Railway has no right, title or interest in it; the Railway's refusal is arbitrary and without authority. Respondent No. 1 (Central Railway) argued that the land was originally acquired for railway purposes and the building is within the safety zone, hence NOC is required.

Ratio Decidendi

Land acquired for railway purposes vests in the President of India, not in the Railway. The Railway has no right, title or interest in the land and cannot demand NOC for redevelopment on land owned by MHADA. The Railway's power under Section 16 of the Railway Act, 1989 to regulate building activities is limited to land owned by the Railway or the Central Government. The Railway has no easementary right over the land as the building existed prior to the railway line.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioners have filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Respondent No. 1’s refusal to grant a No-Objection Certificate [‘NOC’] for re-development of the existing building of Petitioner No. 1. The land vests in the President of India, not in the Railway, and the Railway has no right, title or interest in the land. The Railway's power under Section 16 of the Railway Act, 1989 to regulate building activities is limited to land owned by the Railway or the Central Government.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed the writ petition on an unspecified date. The court heard the matter on 4 September 2020 and pronounced judgment on 3 December 2020. The respondents waived service and the petition was heard finally at the stage of admission by consent.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  • Railway Act, 1989: Section 16
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
  • Easements Act, 1882: Section 13
  • Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Railway's Refusal to Grant NOC for Redevelopment of Cooperative Housing Society. Held that Railway land vests in the President of India and the Railway has no authority to demand NOC for redevelopmen...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows SAIL's Appeal in Minimum Wages Case: Contract Labour Not Entitled to Parity with Regular Employees Without Pleading and Proof of Same Work. Claim under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for wages at par with regular employees fails as cont...