Bombay High Court: While deciding a batch of writ petitions concerning notices issued for desilting and construction of storm water drains, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Nandesh S. Deshpande*, JJ., held that drainage restoration backed by Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act) is not hit by Article 300-A of the Constitution. The Court observed that the authorities were acting within the scope of statutory powers under the DM Act and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act) and that such action, being in public interest, did not require acquisition or compensation.
Background
The dispute arose from notices issued under the DM Act informing the petitioners that the Solapur Municipal Corporation was going to undertake the cleaning and desilting of drains to facilitate the natural flow of the rainwater/storm water and was going to construct drains of permanent nature. It mentioned the petitioners’ area being affected and called upon them not to obstruct the said construction.
The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of agricultural lands for more than 100 years, asserting that the lands were private properties. They further stated that there was no residential area near the said land and it was surrounded by agricultural fields, and that trenches already existed for rainwater drainage, and there was no issue of waterlogging despite heavy rainfall. They argued that a substantial portion of their land would be affected, and that the authorities could not utilise their land without taking possession under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). It was urged that the respondents’ action was violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution and therefore, acquiring the land without payment of compensation was unlawful.
Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the landowners through whose lands the drain or Nala was flowing had illegally filled the Nala, diverted the same, and stopped the flow without permission of the authority concerned, which resulted in obstructing the natural flow of the Nala leading to flooding during the torrential rains in September 2025. It was further stated that Respondent 2 in exercise of powers under Sections 26 and 30, DM Act had directed the owners to not cause disturbance. It was further submitted that the work formed part of a city-wise storm water drainage improvement project undertaken under “Maharashtra Suvarna Jayanti Nagarotthan Mahabhiyan” for mitigation of flooding and improvement of drainage infrastructure. The proposed drainage network was based on existing natural drainage patterns, field surveys, topographical studies and engineering requirements.
It was further stated that if excavation and desilting operations were carried out along with the natural drainage alignment as shown in the approved plans, the toposheet of 1978 and 2001 and maps, the accumulated storm water would immediately get discharged through the natural drainage channel and therefore, the work was necessary. They urged that the Corporation’s act was not an act of acquisition, but a statutory drainage management and flood mitigation measure undertaken in discharge of mandatory duties imposed upon the Corporation.
Also Read: Flood Control can’t endanger Ecology: Kerala HC
Analysis
The Court observed that the DM Act was enacted to provide effective management of disasters, for the prevention and mitigation of the effects of disasters, for undertaking a holistic, coordinated, and prompt response to any disastrous situation, and to provide requisite institutional mechanisms for drawing up and monitoring the implementation of the disaster management plans.
The Court noted Sections 153 to 157, MMC Act, and highlighted that sweeping powers are given to the Municipal Commissioner to lay, maintain, and clean the drains. The Court perused the impugned notice and observed that the Municipal Commissioner, acting under the DM Act had only intimated the petitioners not to cause any obstructions. The Court also noted that Sections 26 and 30, DM Act provided powers and functions of the district authority and observed that the said notice was not foul of the said provisions.
Addressing the contention regarding violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution, the Court clarified that what is protected under Article 300-A is that no one is to be deprived of his property except by authority of law, which means that by executing executive orders or administrative instructions the government cannot ask anybody to vacate his property or demolish his building. But the actions that are backed by the authority of law are saved from being hit by Article 300-A. Thus, the Court observed that since the notices were expressly issued under the DM Act read with the provisions of the MMC Act, the action was backed by law and therefore valid.
The Court rejected the argument that the action amounted to acquisition requiring compensation, observing that the action was being undertaken only in the backdrop of the torrential rains that occurred in Solapur in September 2025 and was in public interest.
The Court also invoked Section 72, DM Act, which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the said Act over any other law in force. The Court referred to Union of India v. G.M. Kokil, 1984 Supp SCC 196, wherein it was held that the non obstanate clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions.
Decision
The Court noted that there were disputed questions of facts as on the one hand, the petitioner stated that there was an existing drain sufficient to discharge the water, while on the other hand, the Corporation on affidavit stated that there was a drain, but it was choked by the petitioners and therefore, the desilting and excavation work was being done. Accordingly, the Court observed that the petitions were without any merit and dismissed them.
[Netaji Shekumbar Bhopale v. Municipal Corpn., Solapur, Writ Petition No. 1819 of 2026, decided on 18-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Sarang S. Aradhye, a/w Mr. Shantanu Gurav a/w Dnyaneshwari Utpat, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Vishwanath Patil, a/w Someshwar Wale, T. J. Kapre, AGP, V. M. Mali, AGP, S. B. Kalel, AGP.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
