Bombay High Court
Anil Somchand Maru vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:7370-DB
BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23110 OF 2021
Kinjal Kantilal Maru ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23111 OF 2021
Nirmala Mohanlal Gada ....Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23112 OF 2021
Anil Somchand Maru ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23113 OF 2021
Jairam Raja Patel ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23140 OF 2021
Ganesh Raja Patel ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23142 OF 2021
Mayank Kanji Nor ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:53 :::
BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23154 OF 2021
Govind Jaga Patel ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23155 OF 2021
Meeta Kantilal Maru ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23197 OF 2021
Hirji Avchar Nor ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23204 OF 2021
Babu Gopal Patel and Ors. ... Petitioners.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23497 OF 2021
Shankar Bhima Pawar ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 35275 OF 2022
Prakash Devilal Jain ... Petitioner.
V/s
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.
2
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:53 :::
BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc
Mr. Kevic Setalwad, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Behzad Irani, Mr.
Kaivaan Setalwad, Advocate for Petitioner in WPL Nos. 23110/2021,
23111/2021,23112/2021, 23113/2021, 23140/2021, 23142/2021,
23154/2021,23155/2021, 23197/2021, 23204/2021, 35275/2022.
Mr. D. V. Sawant a/w Mr. Priyank Kulkarni i/by Gaurav Borse,
Advocates for Petitioner in WPL/23497/2021.
Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. K. H.
Mastakar,Advocate for Respondent No.1-BMC in WPL/23110/2021,
WPL/23111/2021.
Mr. Anoop Patil a/w Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocate for Respondent
No.2- BMC in WPL/23497/2021.
Ms. K. H. Mastakar, Advocate for Respondent-BMC in all other WPs.
Smt. P. H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader for State in WPL/23110/2021
and WPL/23111/2021.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP in WPL/23112/2021 and
WPL/23113/2021.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for State in WPL/23140/2021,
WPL/23142/2021 and WPL/23497/2021.
Mr. Milind V. More, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State in
WPL/23154/2021 and WPL/23155/2021.
Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP for State in WPL/23197/2021 and
WPL/23204/2021.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP for State in WPL/35275/2022.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 25th FEBRUARY 2026 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ.
Aggrieved by the notice dated 24 th September 2021, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have approached this Court seeking interference with the said notice on the ground that their properties are not liable to be acquired under section 297 of the Mumbai Municipal 3 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:53 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc Corporation Act, 1888. They are seeking a direction to the respondents to acquire the subject properties under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013. The said notice was given in identical terms to all eligible non-residential hut- holders offering them compensation as indicated thereunder. The notice given to one of the petitioners, namely, Nirmala Mohanlal Gada is extracted hereinbelow:-
" Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation No. A. C. P. N./1394/A/A. E.(Zone) Date: 24/09/2021.
Office of the Assistant Commissioner, P/North, First floor, Liberty Garden, Malad West, Mumbai- 400064.
To, Smt. Nirmala Mohanlal Gada, M/s. National Plywood and Glass, Structure No.1, Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad (East), Mumbai-97.
Subject:- To carry out widening of Goregaon Mulund Link Road from Oberoi Mall, Western Express Highway to Film City Gate, Goregaon on Goregaon Mulund Link Road and to carry out construction thereof.
Reference:- 1. A. C. P. N./S. R./694/Zone dated 6/4/2016.
2. A. C./Market/31724/A. E. M. dated 6/2/2019.
3. A. C. P. N./722/A/A. E.(Zone) dated 22/7/2021.
4. M. G. C./F/1654 dated 4/3/2020.
As mentioned hereinabove, the Municipal Corporation has undertaken the ambitious project viz. widening of Goregaon Mulund Link Road and the work of rehabilitation of hut holders affected due to road widening on General Arunkumar Vaidya Marg of the width of 45.70 mtrs. and Film City Road, located within the purview of P. North Ward office, under the said project, is being carried out by this office. The Annexure II of the hut holders affected due to the widening of both the said roads has already been sanctioned, and vide No. A. C./W. S./1913/W. dated 14/8/2017 and A. C./W. S./2796/W. Dated 28/3/2018, approval has been granted for rehabilitating the eligible hut holders. As per the proofs submitted by you, it is established that your fully affected non-residential hut/tenement (area 45.05 sq. mtrs.) is prior to the date 1/1/2000 and therefore, as per final and approved Annexure II, the same has been declared as eligible for rehabilitation.
The List of non-residential tenements available with the Municipal Corporation for rehabilitation of eligible non-residential hut holders was informed to you for 4 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:53 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc your rehabilitation, and by letter referred to Sr. No. 3, the same was communicated to you for your consent. However, consent for accepting available non-residential tenement was not received from you. Therefore, for want of rehabilitation, the work of road widening and reconstruction of the road at the said place cannot be carried out.
As you have not given your consent for rehabilitation in the non-residential tenements available with the Municipal Corporation, by making available the option of rehabilitation through monetary consideration as per the prevailing policy of the Municipal Corporation under Sr. No. 3, the permission of the Commissioner to make your rehabilitation by giving monetary consideration has been received by Letter referred to at Sr. No. 4.
As per the Circular bearing No. AC/Market/31724/AEM dtd. 06.02.2019, Rs. 38,92,102.50 only will be paid to you as monetary consideration in respect of the area of your premises by the Municipal Corporation. The said monetary consideration (without interest) will be paid to you after you vacate your existing tenement and hand over the same to the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, you are instructed to demolish the non-residential structure which is in your possession and hand over the said place to the Municipal Corporation within the next 7 days, i.e. till the date 01.10.2021 and should make available the said place for reconstruction of the road. If you fail to demolish your non- residential structure on your own within the said period, action of eviction will be taken by this office without giving any further prior notice, and eviction expenses will be recovered from you, which may be noted.
(Signature Illegible) Assistant Commissioner, P/North "
2. The petitioners state that they are the occupants and owners of the structures over a large plot of land bearing CTS No. 610A/1A/1/1 (part). This is their case that the Municipal Corporation prescribed the regular line of street for the widening of Mulund-Goregaon Link Road. In the impugned eviction notices, the BMC projected a case that the structures fall within the 'Road Line' (RL) as demarcated by the Municipal Corporation as per the provisions under section 297 of the MMC Act. The structures occupied by the petitioners are obstructing the public project for the 'widening of Mulund-Goregaon Link Road' which joins the far Eastern and Western suburbs of Mumbai. The said project is complete to the extent of 70% but the further progress of project has been stalled by the petitioners.5 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:53 :::
BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc
3. In Writ Petition (L) No. 23111 of 2021, the petitioner, namely, Nirmala Mohanlal Gada claims that she owns a piece of land situated at Shop No.08 bearing Survey No. 267 [Hissa No. 1 (Part)] in CTS No. 610A/1A/1/1 (Part), P/North ward, Opposite Gokuldham Police Chowki, General AK Vaidya Marg (Goregaon-E), Mulund Link Road/Film City road, Malad (East), Mumbai. The property was purchased through an agreement to sell dated 15th May 1992 and further purchase was made by an agreement to sell dated 6th February 1999 by her husband Mr. Mohanlal Gada from Mr.Jayantilal Premji Maru. The said property was transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 2006 and since then the said property has been used for commercial gains having all the necessary licenses issued in her name under the MMC Act. She claims that the property does not come under Slum Declared Land and the impugned notice has devalued the property at Rs. 38,92,102.50.
4. In Writ Petition (L) No. 23110 of 2021 which is taken as the lead matter, the petitioner, namely, Kinjal Kantilal Maru states that she owns the property situated at Shop NoF- 07 bearing Survey No. 267 [Hissa No. 1 (Part)] in CTS No. 610A/1A/1/1 (Part) known as M/s Neeta Shoes, P/North ward, Opposite Gokuldham Police Chowki, General AK Vaidya Marg (Goregaon-E), Mulund Link Road/Film City road, Malad (East), Mumbai. The said property was purchased by her father through an agreement to sell dated 15th May 1992. The petitioner states that the subject property has been used for commercial gains and it has been a huge source of income for her family in the last 30 years. According to the petitioner, she was granted an eligibility certificate for the subject property and received a notice dated 6 th April 2016 from the Municipal Corporation to tender the documents in order to prove her ownership over the subject property. She obtained a report from H. Mehta and Associates, Architects and Government Registered Valuers which 6 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:53 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc indicated that the market rate with respect to the commercial premises in the area of the subject property is more than double the ready-reckoner rate. The petitioner declined the offer of alternate accommodation because it was in dilapidated condition, in secluded areas and a commercially unviable place. According to the petitioner, the alternate accommodation offered by the Municipal Corporation is not a viable option to conduct and run a business and that shall cause hardships to her and her family.
5. The petitioner has made the following prayers in Writ Petition (L) No. 23110 of 2021:-
"11.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this Writ Petition.
11.2. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other order or Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby, directing the Respondent no.2, to cancel and set aside the impugned notice dated 24 th September, 2021 bearing reference no: 1395 as the same has been issued without following the due process of law.
11.3. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other order or Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby, directing the Respondents to follow the due process of law to acquire the said property, being Shop no.07, bearing survey no: 267, Hissa no: I(Part) C.T.S. no: 610A/1A/1/1 (Part), known as M/s. Neeta Shoes, P/North Ward, Opp. Gokuldham Police Chowki, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg (Goregaon-E), Mulund Link Road/Film city road, Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097, admeasuring 47.40 sq.mts. (said property).
11.4. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other order or Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby, directing the Respondents to acquire the said property being Shop no. F-07, bearing survey no: 267, Hissa no:
I(Part) C.T.S. no: 610A/1A/1/1 (Part), known as M/s. Bombay Shoes, P/North Ward, Opp. Gokuldham Police Chowki, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg (Goregaon-E), Mulund Link Road/Film city road, Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097, admeasuring 47.40 sq.mts. (said property) under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act 2013.
11.5. That pending final hearing and disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the impugned notice dated 24 th September, 2021 bearing reference no: 1393, thereby, maintaining 7 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc status quo with respect to the said property:
11.6. That without prejudice to the above and in addition to the same, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to grant the Petitioner an opportunity to submit his claim before the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 with respect to the said property being Shop no. F-07, bearing survey no: 267, Hissa no: I(Part) C.T.S. no:
610A/1A/1/1 (Part), known as M/s Bombay Shoes, P/North Ward, Opp. Gokuldham Police Chowki, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg (Goregaon- E), Mulund Link Road/Film city road, Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097, admeasuring 47.40 sq.mts. (said property) and in course of the same, stay the impugned notice dated 24th September, 2021.
11.7. Interim and Ad-interim prayers with respect to the prayer clauses 11.1 to 11.6."
6. On the other hand, the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.23497 of 2021 claims that he is the co-owner of the property comprising of a piece of land admeasuring about 2786 sq.mtrs. with a structure standing thereon situated at CTS No. 610A/1A corresponding to Survey No.267(Part) at village Malad within Taluka Borivali in Mumbai Suburban District. He further states that the property was acquired by his father late Bhima Parshuram Pawar who died intestate on 24 th April 2004. His father had acquired the said property from F.E. Dinshaw Trust and others through a registered conveyance in the year 1993 and he was carrying the quarrying activities over the said property. According him, the name of his father is recorded in the Index-II and he had constructed several structures over the subject property and handed over those structures to the tenants for their use and occupation. However, in course of time some persons encroached upon a large portion of the subject property and constructed hutments. The petitioner states that some notices were issued in the past to the occupants/tenants of the subject property under section 351 of the MMC Act. Such notices were contested in L.C. Suit No. 3875 of 2000 which was decreed by an order dated 29 th November 2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that no notice as the one like the notice dated 24th September 2021 was issued to him before the respondents 8 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc proposed to demolish the structures over the subject property for widening of the Goregaon-Mulund Link Road.
7. Mr. Kevic Setalvad, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that acquisition by the Municipal Corporation must fall under section 296 and not under section 297 read with section 298 of the MMC Act. The petitioners are entitled for compensation in terms of section 91 of the MMC Act which provides procedure for the acquisition of immovable property by agreement and the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. On the other hand, Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, the learned senior counsel for Municipal Corporation stressed on the language employed under sub- section (1) of section 297 of the MMC Act and submitted that the Municipal Corporation has acquired the land for widening of the road which was already sanctioned.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it is stated that the Corporation has prescribed road line in respect of General Arunkumar Vaidya Marg by obtaining sanction of the Standing Committee of the Corporation vide Resolution No.1440 dated 14th January 2019. The road widening project was being undertaken under section 297(1) read with section 298 of the MMC Act. There were 237 structures affected by the road widening and notices were issued to them to submit documentary evidence in support of their claim. It is stated that 131 occupiers produced sufficient documentary evidence and, they were found eligible for commercial alternative accommodation. Seven such occupiers are eligible for residential alternative accommodation and 23 of them are eligible for Kurar pattern category. This is the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation that the monetary compensation offered to the noticee was as per Step No.7 of the Circular dated 6 th February 2019.
9 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 :::BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc The Municipal Corporation has taken the following stand in its counter affidavit :-
"4. The petitioner herein is claiming his rights on the basis of Agreement of Sale by virtue of which according to him he has agreed to purchase the property in question. No sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner to make him the owner of the said structure or the land thereunder. The original owner has not come forward before the Court to challenge the notice for demolition of the structure. Therefore the present petition at the instance of a person who is not the owner of the said property may not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court on the basis of the said Agreement of Sale.
5. The Respondent Corporation has undertaken the ambitious project of Goregaon-Mulund Link Road ("GMLR") Widening, which is a part of Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) for Greater Mumbai and for that it is very necessary to widen the 45.70 mtr. to the duly prescribed Road Line of Gen. Arunkumar Vaidya Marg falling within the jurisdiction of P/North Ward.
6. The Respondent Corporation had duly prescribed the road line in respect of the road in question i.e Gen. Arunkumar Vaidya Marg by obtaining sanction of the Standing Committee of the Corporation vide Resolution no. 1440 dated 14.01.2019 and the road widening is sought to be undertaken to widen the said road upto the duly prescribed road line. This is being undertaken by virtue of section 297 (1) and section 298 of MMC Act.
7. The notice dated 06.04.2016 was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to produce the documents as it was proposed to allot alternative accommodation in lieu of the structure in Petitioner's occupation which was to be demolished for the purpose of the road widening. The Petitioner participated in the process of verifying and ascertaining his entitlement to the alternative accommodation by producing several documents.
9. After preparation of list of eligible persons, the Respondents notified 9 alternative accommodations for allotment on "first cum first serve" basis. The Petitioner did not apply for the alternative accommodation, nor did any other person of this group apply to these respondents for allotment of alternative accommodations. The said 9 accommodations were allotted to 9 persons not from this group on the basis of their applications and they would vacate their structures soon.
10. Thereafter, these Respondents offered an amount of Rs. 38,92,102.50/- as monetary compensation, as per the step no. 7 of the Circular dated 06.02.2019. The Petitioner's structure was considered as non-eligible for awarding compensation to shop/commercial of ground 10 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc floor as the documents did not establish the existence of structure prior to the datum line i.e. 01.04.1962 to tolerate commercial use of structure u/ref. Also petitioner has not produced any of the authentic documents such as approval or permission for construction of this structure u/ref. Hence the structure u/ref is considered as eligible for compensation payable to slum commercial PAPs. In view of the foregoing the claim of the Petitioner to receive the payment of compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act is not tenable in law.
11. So far around 11 occupants of the structures on the land affected by the said road line have vacated their structures and accepted the alternative accommodations offered to them / the amount of compensation offered to them as per the said circular dated 06.02.2019 and these Respondents have already demolished around 87 structures standing on the said land affected by the Road Line. For this widening project MCGM has sanctioned total amount of Rs.363595135.50 for payment of compensation, providing alternative compensation, demolition of structures affected by the road line. For widening and construction of GMLR work order is entrusted to M/s Landmark Corporation Pvt. Ltd vide work order no Ch.E/116/GMLR dated 01.08.2018 of amount Rs. 619356.204.00. Any delay in the execution of the said work, if caused, will result in escalation of the cost of the whole project.
12. The Petitioner's contention that the compensation should be paid by acquiring his structure and the land underneath, under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act is not tenable in law, as the policy of the Respondents to award compensation for the land and structures affected by the Road Line takes care of awarding substantial compensation and is governed by the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Moreover the compensation so paid under the said policy has always been fair and reasonable and therefore most of the occupants of the structures on the lands affected by the Road Line have been accepting the compensation willingly by voluntarily handing over the possession of the structures and making available the land under the structures for the work of road widening. I therefore submit that, this Hon'ble Court may not grant any interim relief of any nature in favour of the present Petitioners as the petitioner has not submitted any authentic documents claiming the ownership of the land on which the structure is situated. In this case rights of the landowner under the fair compensation Act towards the compensation of the land u/ref will be subject to prevailing policy as and when owner of the land, apply for the same. I further submit that, the said road, if widened, is going to give relief to the citizens from traffic congestion and ultimately serve the larger public interest and therefore as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the private interests will have to yield to public interest."11 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 :::
BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc
9. In the notice dated 24th September 2021, it is stated that the Municipal Corporation has undertaken the project of widening of Goregaon-Mulund Link Road and for rehabilitation of the eligible hut- holders who are affected due to the road widening on General Arunkumar Vaidya Marg and Film City Road, for which approval has been granted. The notice dated 24th September 2021 further records that it has been established by the noticee that he/she was a fully affected non-residential hut-tenement prior to 1st January 2000 and thus eligible for rehabilitation. As the petitioners did not give their consent for rehabilitation in the non-residential tenements available with the Municipal Corporation, the permission of the Commissioner was obtained vide letter M.G.C./F/1654 dated 4th March 2020 for offering monetary compensation to them. For example, a monetary compensation to the tune of Rs 38,92,102.50 was proposed to be paid in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.23111 of 2021 titled "Kinjal Kantilal Maru v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors." The other petitioners in the connected writ petitions have also been offered monetary compensation but the said monetary consideration shall be paid to them after they vacate the existing tenement and handover the possession thereof to the Municipal Corporation. The notice also contains a direction to the noticee to demolish the non-residential structure in his possession and handover possession thereof to the Municipal Corporation within next 7 days.
10. The provisions under sections 296 and 297 are extracted below :
"296. Power to acquire premises for improvement of public streets.-- (1) The Commissioner may, subject to the provisions of section 90, 91 and 92--
(a) acquire any land required for the purpose of opening, widening, extending or otherwise improving any public street or of making any new public street, and the buildings, if any, standing upon such land;
(b) acquire in addition to the said land and the buildings, if any, 12 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc standing, thereupon, all such land with the buildings, if any, standing thereupon, as it shall seem expedient for the corporation to acquire outside of the regular line, or of the intended regular line, of such street;
(c) lease, sell or otherwise dispose of any land or building purchased under clause (b).
(2) Any conveyance of land or of a building under clause (c) may comprise such conditions as the Commissioner thinks fit, as to the removal of the existing building, the description of new building to be erected, the period within which such new building shall be completed and other such matters."
297. Prescribing the regular line of a street.
(1) The Commissioner may--
(a) prescribe a line on each side of any public street:
[Provided that in the case of any public street in the suburbs the regular line of a public street operative under any law in force in any part of the suburbs on the day immediately preceding the date of coming into force of the Bombay Municipal (Extension of Limits) Act, 1950 (Bom. VII of 1950), [and in the case of any public street in the extended suburbs the regular line of a public street operative under any law in force in any part of the extended suburbs on the day immediately preceding the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Municipal [Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment)] Act, 1956 (Bom. LVIII of 1956)] shall be deemed to be a line prescribed by the Commissioner under this clause.]
(b) from time to time, but subject in each case to his receiving the authority of the corporation in that behalf, prescribe a fresh line in substitution for any line so prescribed, or for any part thereof provided that such authority shall not be accorded--
(i) unless, at least one month before the meeting of the corporation at which the matter is decided public notice of the proposal has been given by the Commissioner by advertisement in local newspapers as well as in the [Official Gazette], and special notice thereof, signed by the Commissioner, has also been put up in the street or part of the street for which such fresh line is proposed to be prescribed, and
(ii) until the corporation have considered all objections to the said proposal made in writing and delivered at the office of the municipal secretary not less than three clear days before the day of such meeting. (2) The line for the time being prescribed shall be called 'the regular line of the street'.
(3) No person shall construct any portion of any building within the regular line of the street except with the written permission of the Commissioner, who shall, in every case in which he gives such permission, at the same time report his reasons in writing to the 1[Standing Committee]."13 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 :::
BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc
11. Section 296 of the MMC Act deals with the power to acquire premises for improvement of the public street. Whereas, section 297 deals with the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to prescribe a regular line on each side of any public street. Under Section 296, the Commissioner has power to acquire any land required for the purpose of opening, widening, extending or otherwise improving any public street or of making any new public street and the buildings, if any, standing upon such land. The acquisition of land under section 296 has to be made as per the Land Acquisition Act. Such acquisition shall include solatium of 15% of the market value of the land together with the compensation to be paid to the affected party. On the other hand, the acquisition under section 297 can only be in respect of the lands falling within the regular line of the street.
If the stand of the respondent-Corporation is to be accepted that the acquisition was made under section 297 pursuant to the Resolution dated 14th January 2019 then the respondent-Corporation was required to produce the necessary materials satisfying the power to prescribe a fresh line. There is an elaborate procedure prescribed under clause (b) to sub- section (1) of section 297 which provides for advertisement in the local newspaper, in the official gazette and a special notice signed by the Commissioner and put up in the street or part of the street for which such fresh line was proposed.
12. This is quite relevant to record that no documentary evidence including the proceedings of Standing Committee has been produced in support of the stand that the Municipal Corporation exercised its powers under sub-section (1) of section 297 read with section 298 of the MMC Act. The respondent-Corporation has also failed to produce any material on record to establish that it was a pre-existing road line for which acquisition was made. The offer of monetary compensation in terms of the Circular dated 6th February 2019 also seems not to be in consonance 14 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 ::: BDP 1 WPL-23110-2021.doc with the provisions under MMC Act. This is also bearing in our mind that in cases where a person is dispossessed by the operation of law or loses his property, he is entitled to be suitably compensated. Any doubt on interpretation of a statutory provision must be in favor of the landholder or occupier like the petitioners. This is merely a technical plea raised on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that the petitioners are not the landholders. In fact, the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation is contrary to the finding recorded in favor of the petitioners in the notice dated 24th September 2021. We further hold that the stand by the alleged landholder in Writ Petition (L) No.23497/2021 is clearly contradicted by the materials brought on record by the other petitioners.
13. In the result, the notices issued to the petitioners on 24 th September 2021 are quashed and Writ Petition (L) Nos. 23110 of 2021, 23111 of 2021, 23112 of 2021, 23113 of 2021, 23140 of 2021, 23142 of 2021, 23154 of 2021, 23155 of 2021, 23197 of 2021, 23204 of 2021 and 35275 of 2022 are allowed. The acquisition of the subject properties by the Corporation is held to be under section 296 of the MMC Act and the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation in terms thereof.
14. The writ petitions except Writ Petition (L) No.23497 of 2021 are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
15. Writ Petition (L) No.23497 of 2021 is dismissed.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 15 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2026 20:31:54 :::