Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In the suit instituted by the appellant, he has basically challenged the twenty-seven orders/letters, all dated 13.5.2006, declaring that the suit structures admeasuring 485 sq.yards bearing Survey No. 35,Hissa No. 1(Part), CTS No. 688, situate at Saki Vihar Road, Opposite Killick Nikson, Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 072 and chawl standing thereon (for short, "he suit structures") are unauthorised and cannot be tolerated as per the policy.

4. Respondent No. 1-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short, "the Authority") is established under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Page 3658 Development Authority Act, 1974 (for short, "the Act of 1974"). Respondent No. 2, the Executive Engineer of the Authority, had issued notices dated 13.4.2006 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, "the Act of 1888"). The appellant did not submit any reply or produce documents to prove that the suit structures exist since prior to datum line. The Authority, therefore, passed the orders dated 13.05.2006 directing the appellant to remove from the suit site or else the suit structures would be demolished. All these orders are the subject matters of the suit.

5. Submission of Mr Godbole, learned Counsel for the appellant, was three-fold. Firstly, respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer of the authority, had no power to issue the notice dated 13.4.2006 under Section 351 of the Act of 1888 and since the notice itself was illegal, the order dated 13.5.2006 passed thereon is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Secondly, he submitted that the suit structures have been in existence since prior to 1.4.1962, the datum line, and hence are tolerated. Lastly, he submitted that the second part of the prayer Clause (b) in the notice of motion seeking injunction restraining the authority from entering into the suit property/structures for the purposes of construction/widening of the road without acquiring the same under the Land Acquisition Act and/or providing the alternative accommodation to the tenants/occupants by preparing scheme under Section 12(K) of the Act of 1974 has not been considered at all by the trial court.

10. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act of 1974 clearly demonstrate that the Metropolitan Commissioner virtually replaces the Municipal Commissioner for the proposes of providing amenity within Brihan Mumbai and/or for preparing any project or scheme with a view to provide infrastructure within the territorial limits of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and execute the same. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that the Metropolitan Commissioner and the authority shall be deemed to be the Municipal Commissioner and the Corporation, respectively, for the purpose of preparing and execution of the project or scheme under Sub-section (1) of Section 17. Under Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 4A of the Act of 1974 the Metropolitan Commissioner is empowered to exercise all such powers and perform such functions or duties as the Authority may, by a resolution passed in that behalf, direct. In turn, the Metropolitan Commissioner, by general or special order, is further empowered to direct that such of the powers and functions or duties delegated to him, as aforesaid or under Sub-section (5) or Section 7 shall be exercised or performed by such of the officers of the Authority as may be specified in such order. It is thus clear that this provision clearly empowers the Authority to delegate its powers to the Metropolitan Commissioner and the Metropolitan Commissioner, in turn, can sub-delegate those powers or functions to the officers of the Authority, subordinate to him, as may be specified in such order. There is absolutely nothing in Section 17 which curtails the power/right of the Metropolitan Commissioner from delegating his powers or functions or duties to his subordinate officers of the Authority. The Metropolitan Commissioner and the Authority, as a matter of fact, step into the shoes of the Municipal Commissioner and the Corporation, respectively, under the Act of 1888 as also the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and shall, respectively, exercise the powers of the Municipal Commissioner and the Page 3661 Corporation under the said Acts. The submission of Mr Godbole, learned counsel for the appellant that Section 4A does not empower the Metropolitan Commissioner to delegate powers of the Municipal Commissioner including the power under Section 351 of the Act of 1888 which he gets under Section 17 of the Act of 1974, in my opinion, deserves to be rejected.

11. There was no dispute about the powers of the Metropolitan Commissioner. In fact Mr. Godbole submitted that it is only the Metropolitan Commissioner has a power to issue notice under Section 351 of the Act of 1888 and that the Executive Engineer has no power to issue such notice. However, for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs the Metropolitan Commissioner, in my opinion, has ample powers to delegate all such of the powers or functions or duties exercised by him to such of the officers of the Authority, as may be specialised in special or general order. The Metropolitan Commissioner, in fact, vide office order dated 10.1.2005, has delegated the powers under the Act of 1888, MRTP Act, 1966 and the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 17 read with Section 4A of the Act of 1974 for speedy implementation of Mumbai Urban Transport Project and Mumbai Urban Infrastructure projects. The said office order has been referred to by the learned Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. From bare perusal of the said order, it is clear that the Executive Engineer can exercise or perform such of the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Metropolitan Commissioner. In view thereof, the notice issued under Section 351 by respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer cannot be faulted. The next submission of Mr Godbole was that the suit structures have been in existence since prior datum line and hence cannot be treated as unauthorised and are tolerated. In support of this submission, my attention was drawn to the set of two documents, viz. the ten property register cards with 7/12 extracts and the assessment bills to contend that the disputed structures were assessed since prior to datum line starting from 1955 and, therefore, are tolerated structures. I perused the notice under Section 351 dated 13.4.2006 and the orders passed thereon dated 13.5.2006. I also perused the assessment bills and other material placed on record. From perusal of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order, I am satisfied that the court below has considered the said material in proper perspective to hold that the assessment bills produced on record do not establish that they pertain to the suit structures, and insofar as ten property register cards are concerned, they would not help the appellant to establish that the disputed structures were constructed prior to 1.4.1962. Mr Godbole could not take the case any further so as to disturb the findings recorded in that behalf in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. Paragraph 9 of the impugned order reads thus: