Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard and disposed of a group of matters comprising Writ Petition No. 841 of 2012, Public Interest Litigation No. 3 of 2011, and Writ Petition No. 1063 of 2013, which involved common questions of fact and law. The lead petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974. The petitioners in WP 841/2012 were individual co-owners of a chawl-type structure on CTS No. 185-A, village Asalpha, Ghatkopar, Mumbai Suburban District, and a registered trust managing a temple on leased land. They claimed rights over immovable property admeasuring about 484.80 square meters. The State of Maharashtra, through its Urban Development Department, had initiated acquisition proceedings under the MMRDA Act for 310 square meters out of a total 739 square meters of the property. A show cause notice was issued on 25 April 2011, followed by a final notification dated 27 December 2011. The Collector of Mumbai Suburban District acted as the competent authority, and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority was designated as the Special Planning Authority under Section 40(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, for the Undeveloped Notified Area. The MMRDA was deemed a Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai under Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act. The petitioners contended that the acquisition and the statutory provisions were unconstitutional. The High Court had passed detailed orders earlier, including an order dated 19 March 2012, and subsequently granted Rule on the petitions. After affidavits were filed and detailed arguments advanced by senior counsel, the Advocate General for the State, and other advocates, the court, with the consent of all parties, proceeded to finally dispose of the petitions. The extracted text does not contain the court's final reasoning or the specific outcome regarding the constitutional challenge. The judgment excerpt ends while the court was referring to the notification text. Thus, the precise decision on the validity of the provisions, the relief granted, or the operative directions remains unavailable from the provided material.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of MMRDA Act Provisions - Sections 17(2) and 32(1) Proviso - Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 - Petitioners challenged constitutional validity of provisions deeming MMRDA as Municipal Corporation and proviso to acquisition section - Court granted rule and with consent disposed of petitions finally (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 are constitutionally valid?
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- constitutional validity of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act
- 1974 Sections 17(2) and 32(1) Proviso
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- 1966 Section 40(1)(c)
- Special Planning Authority
- Undeveloped Notified Area
- MMRDA deemed Municipal Corporation
- acquisition proceedings under MMRDA Act
- Order XXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 45
Writ Petition No. 841 of 2012 along with Public Interest Litigation No. 3 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 1063 of 2013
S. C. Dharmadhikari, R. I. Chagla
Anil Anturkar, Sr. Counsel with Nitesh Acharya, Shraddha S. Chaurasiya for petitioners in WP 841; Rajkumar Awasthi, petitioner-in-person in PIL 3; Ashif Husain with Altaf Khan for petitioners in WP 1063; Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General with P.H. Kantharia (GP) for State in WP 841, with Geeta R. Shastri (AGP) for State in PIL 3, with Milind More (AGP) for State in WP 1063; Kiran Bagalia for MMRDA; Javed Shaikh with Kejali Mastakar for MCGM in PIL 3; Kejali Mastakar for MCGM in WP 841 and WP 1063
Sadanand Shankar Mane & Ors. (WP 841/2012), Raj Kumar Awasthi (PIL 3/2011), Rajesh Narayan Tiwari & Ors. (WP 1063/2013)
State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Collector Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Constitutional challenge to provisions of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, regarding land acquisition and deeming of MMRDA as Municipal Corporation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of acquisition notification and declaration that Sections 17(2) and 32(1) Proviso of MMRDA Act are unconstitutional.
Filing Reason
The State issued acquisition notification for 310 sq.mtr. of petitioners' land under the MMRDA Act, based on provisions petitioners claimed are unconstitutional.
Previous Decisions
The court passed detailed orders earlier, including an order dated 19 March 2012, granting Rule on the petitions, and with consent of parties, proceeded to final disposal.
Issues
Whether Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 are constitutionally valid?
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of Sections 17(2) and 32(1) (Proviso) of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974.
we grant Rule on these petitions... with the consent of the parties, we dispose of the petitions finally.
It is claimed that petitioner No.8 is a registered Trust.
as per Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act, the MMRDA is deemed Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai.
Now, that notification, copy of which is annexed to the petition, needs to be referred in some details. It reads as under:-
Procedural History
Writ petitions and PIL filed challenging acquisition notification and constitutional validity of MMRDA Act provisions. Court passed detailed orders earlier, including on 19 March 2012, and granted Rule. Affidavits filed and arguments heard from all sides. With consent of parties, the matters were finally disposed of on 15 November 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974: Sections 17(2), 32(1) Proviso
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Sections 2(31-A), 40(1)(c)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXVII, Rule 4
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
