Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed by a construction company (petitioner) challenging the decision of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’) , made in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’), to sanction a new 13.40-meter-wide Road Line (‘RL’) through their plot without giving a fair opportunity of hearing, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., set aside the impugned decision and held that such sanctioning had infringed upon the petitioner’s civil rights, as it had been done without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Background:
The petitioner had purchased property in Malad, Mumbai and commenced development under an approved Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (‘SR Scheme’). Several buildings were completed or under progress based on plans sanctioned by the SRA. Meanwhile, an adjoining plot, allegedly landlocked, was proposed for another SR Scheme by a different developer and society. On 5-8-2024, Executive Engineer of the SRA recommended the proposal for new RL holding that the proposed road was necessary for implementation of SR Scheme on the adjoining plot. Subsequently the MCGM passed a resolution authorising the Municipal Commissioner to exercise powers under Section 291(a) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’) and sanction the RL cutting through the petitioner’s plot.
The petitioner submitted that the impugned decision of sanctioning RL cutting through the petitioner’s plot was taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was never heard before taking the impugned decision and the impugned decision suffered from gross non-application of mind, as both the SRA and MCGM had not considered the factum of the proposed RL cutting through buildings constructed / to be constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner further alleged that even if the MCGM had showed willingness to correct the mistake, no action had been taken and the sanctioned RL continued to affect the development of his plot and since the very decision of sanctioning the RL was ab initio void, the same deserved to be set aside in its entirety.
The respondent contended that the MCGM was well within the jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 291 of the MMC Act, for sanctioning new road to a land locked property. It was further argued that what was sanctioned on the plot of the petitioner was not a new road, only alignment of the existing road had been altered, and the decision of sanctioning RL was well considered and taken after due consultation with the special planning authority.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the sketch for the new RL, which had been superimposed on a map, clearly showed that the sanctioning of the new RL would have adversely affected the construction of some of the petitioner’s buildings on his plot where some buildings were fully impacted, while others were partially affected, including an open space that was significantly compromised. Further, the road would also pass through one of the recreational grounds sanctioned in the layout.
The Court emphasised that the impugned RL was sanctioned with gross non-application of mind by the SRA, despite the petitioner undertaking development on the plot and the SRA granting building permissions. The Court noted the SRA later accepted its mistake, but MCGM failed to take corrective action and since the decision was based on ignorance of relevant factors, the Court was justified in exercising judicial review to set aside the impugned RL.
The Court condemned the contention that when the proposed public street transgressed any building, requiring its demolition, the owner or occupier thereof need not be heard. The Court said that if the proposed public street rendered any sanctioned building unbuildable, the Municipal Corporation could not unilaterally proceed to sanction the street without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.
The Court opined that the impugned decisions would be set aside on counts of non-application of mind and violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the proposal for sanctioning a new public street needed to be reconsidered by the MCGM after securing fresh comments from the SRA. The Court further said that the impugned RL had affected petitioner’s civil rights and therefore opportunity of hearing was necessary, though not specifically provided in Section 291 of the MMC Act and subsequently the SRA needed to properly apply its mind to all the relevant factors after granting opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
The Court, therefore set aside the sanction of the impugned RL and directed the CEO/SRA to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondents before recommending sanction of new public street to the MCGM from the plot of the petitioner and further decide the matter strictly in accordance with law within four weeks.
[Raghavendra Construction Company (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Commissioner, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2575, decided on 2-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate and Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Bhushan Deshmukh and Shailendra Singh i/b Rahul Pandey and Ismail Shiakh.
For the Respondents: Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Gaurav Mehta, Shamima Taly & Sehyr Taly i/b. S. Mahomedbhai & Co. Mayur Khandeparkar with Aditya miskita i/b. Aziz Mohd.
Oorja Dhond i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi Ravleen Sabharwal with Prakhar Tandon, Aarushi Yadav and Mandar B. Waidande
