Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The petitioners state in the writ petition that the MMRDA is claiming itself as a "Nodal Agency" for construction and widening of the existing Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road. It is a Development Plan road. The reservation of a Development Plan road is subsisting and this is not a project of the MMRDA, but that of the State Government. The MMRDA is merely the "Nodal Agency". Now, the MMRDA says that there is a policy for rehabilitation and relocation of those affected by such public project and that is how the allotment of the alternate tenements has been made. We are not concerned with further details of the project, but what is emphasised before us is that the Government of Maharashtra has established the MMRDA under the MMRDA Act. However, the present property is not "Undeveloped Notified Area". It is outside such area. The MMRDA is not appointed as a Special Planning Authority for that area. On 1st June, 1993, by the 74th amendment to the Constitution of India, Part IX A, "Municipality" was inserted. A schedule known as Twelfth Schedule was also M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc added. By Maharashtra Act V of 2003, Section 17 of the MMRDA Act has been substituted. The substituted provision has been extensively referred and it is stated that on 12 th January, 2003, the Special Land Acquisition Officer acquired 431.00 sq.mtrs. of land, namely, CTS No.185 and it was given new CTS No.185-B. The unaffected portion was numbered as 185-A. The State Government, by order dated 26th August, 2003, granted statutory protection to all project affected households and guaranteed the compulsory free of cost rehabilitation in exchange of all the project affected structures. By notification dated 10 th August, 2008, the sixth respondent, acting on behalf of the State Government, appointed the Collector-Mumbai Suburban District as the "Competent Authority" under Section 40 of the MMRDA Act for the purpose of Sections 32 to 39 thereof. Petitioner No.8- Trust requested the Commissioner, MMRDA to intimate the details of the project affecting the temple property, as there was no information of any proposed project available to the trustees.

(3) When a notification as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date on which the notification is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances."

19. Mr.Anturkar has confined his argument to the constitutional validity of Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act. He would submit that MMRDA does not comprise of persons chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the municipal area. The municipal area is divided into territorial constituencies to be known as Wards and, therefore, MMRDA cannot be a municipality. Inviting our attention to Part IXA of the Constitution of India, Mr.Anturkar would submit that Article M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc 243Q employs the words that, there shall be constituted in every State, a Nagar Panchayat for a transitional area, a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area and a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of Part IXA. Therefore, in order to constitute a Municipality, the provisions of Article 243R have to be complied with. If the mandate of Articles 243R and 243(2) is not complied with, then, by a backdoor method and by inserting a provision like Section 17(2), the status of Municipality cannot be conferred upon MMRDA. Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act attempts precisely to do that and that is how, Mr.Anturkar would submit that the said sub-section needs to be struck down. It is submitted that there are two types of developments. One is a development in the restricted sense (micro development) and secondly, a development as a homogeneous (mega scale). Mr.Anturkar submits that the expression "Development" is defined separately and distinctly in the MMRDA Act, MRTP Act and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (for short, "the MHAD Act".) That carries a distinct meaning in these Acts. The expression has to be defined and its interpretation, unless the context otherwise requires, ought to be consistent with the object and purpose sought to be achieved by the respective statutes in which this definition has been inserted. As far as the M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc Maharashtra State is concerned, the word "development" has been used in a restrictive sense in the MHAD Act. However, that would be inclusive of certain aspects in the MMRDA Act and the MRTP Act. The argument is that by virtue of the deeming provision "outside the notified area", for which the MMRDA is planning authority under Section 40 of the MRTP Act, it can function only because of Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act. Thus, the field occupied by the MMC Act is taken over by the stipulation contained in Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act. Such a stipulation ousts the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Mr.Anturkar submits that Article 243Q says that there shall be a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. This means that there is one Corporation. Section 17(2) of the MMRDA Act creates two Corporations. Part IXA to the Constitution defines 'Municipality'. That means an institution of self-government. MMRDA cannot be an institution of self-government. Treating MMRDA as deemed Corporation defies the concept of an institution of self- government. Thereafter our attention as invited to Article 243W of the Constitution and the word "endow" as employed therein. The word "endow" is to confer upon. Thus, the status has been conferred upon the MMRDA. The obligation to implement a Development Plan is distinct than that of conferment of status. M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc

27. Chapter IV of the Act contains Sections 12 to 17. It is titled as "Powers and Functions of the Authority". Mr.Anturkar would read Section 17(2) in isolation, but that is improper. Chapter IV contains firstly, Section 12 and that deals with the functions of the Metropolitan Authority. The main object of the Authority shall be to secure the development of the Bombay Metropolitan Region according to the regional plan and for that purpose, the functions of the Authority shall be to review any physical, financial and economical plan, review any project or scheme for development which may be proposed or may be in the course of execution or may be completed in the Metropolitan Region, M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc formulate and sanction schemes for the development of the Metropolitan Region or any part thereof, execute projects and schemes, make recommendation to the State Government, participate with any other authority for inter-regional development. For properly discharging these functions, certain powers have to be conferred in the Authority. Such a power is found to be conferred by Section 13 and that is carved out in the negative language. Section 13 says that no other authority without permission of the MMRDA (Metropolitan Authority), shall undertake certain development. Thereafter, Section 14 enlists powers of the Metropolitan Authority to give directions. Section 14 follows Section 15, which empowers the Metropolitan Authority to require Local Authority to assume responsibilities in certain cases. Where any amenities are provided by the Metropolitan Authority, the Authority may assume responsibility for the maintenance of the amenities, which have been provided by it or may require the local authority, under whose local limits the area so developed is situated, to assume such responsibility for the maintenance of the amenities, and for the provision of such other amenities which have not been provided by the Metropolitan Authority, but, which, in its opinion, should be provided in the area, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Metropolitan Authority and that Local M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc Authority. Far from taking over the functions and assuming the role of a Municipal Corporation, the MMRDA has been allowed to step in for performing its functions set out in Section 14. The law postulates total cooperation, coordination between the Local Authority and MMRDA in fulfilling the aim and object of the MMRDA Act. It is for that limited purpose that the Act contains enabling provisions so as to enable MMRDA to step in and assume responsibilities. This is not a take over or displacement at all. The MMRDA and the local authority both exist and work in harmony. By Section 16, a power is conferred to execute any plan. Now, the Metropolitan Authority, as defined in the law and established and constituted under Section 3, has been permitted to execute any plan. Section 16 throws light on the next two Sections appearing in this Chapter and, therefore, we usefully reproduce it:-

levels taken and boundaries marked, to cut down and clear away any fence or jungle:

Provided that, before entering upon any land, the Metropolitan Authority, shall give notice of its intention to do so in such manner as may be specified in the regulations."

28. A perusal of Section 16 leaves us in no manner of doubt that execution of any plan and prior thereto, all responsibilities, discharging certain obligations in terms of Section 12 places the MMRDA not as a planning authority or a Municipal Corporation/ M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc Municipality in terms of Part IXA of the Constitution, but permits the MMRDA to oversee the execution of such development projects or implementation of such schemes, which have not been carried out by any authority other than MMRDA expeditiously and completed them. There is a role assigned to the Metropolitan Authority and which is specific. The MMRDA on realising that the overall development of the region or any part thereof has been adversely affected due to inaction or acts of omission and commission of any authority other than MMRDA, it can with the sanction of the State Government step in to remedy the situation. If it is directed by the State Government in terms of section 16(2) of the Act in which case, it can all the more assume a proactive role. Now, section 16(3) which enables the MMRDA to perform such role has not been challenged though it purports to achieve the same result as section 17(2). Once this statutory framework is understood, then, everything falls in place. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 empowers the Authority to obtain sanction of the Government or undertake itself any work or incur any expenditure for the execution of such development projects or implementation of such schemes as envisaged in sub-section (1) of Section 16. The sub-sections of Section 16, therefore, contain provisions to enable effective exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 16. Thus, what holds good for the M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc purpose of execution of any plan and the power conferred in that behalf equally holds good for provision of amenity within Brihan Mumbai. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 contains a non-obstante clause and it overrides the MMRDA Act or the MMC Act or any other law for the time being in force. It confers a discretion in the MMRDA and in this discretionary power, it can provide the amenity within Brihan Mumbai. While it is empowered in its discretion to prepare any project or scheme, with a view to provide infrastructure within the territorial limits of Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and execute it, the law says that it has to consult the Municipal Commissioner of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 17 clarifies that the term "infrastructure" shall not include other items specified in sections 61 and 63 of the MMC Act. Thus, while providing infrastructure, which also mean and include streets, roads, bridges and any other means of transport and communication, and activities related to the execution of such infrastructure project or scheme, the MMRDA Act does not deprive or denude the Municipal Corporation of its status or performance of the obligagtory and discretionary duty in terms of Sections 61 and 63 of the MMC Act. It is not a displacing or take over and we agree with the learned Advocate General Mr.Kumbhakoni that the sub-sections of Section 17 only M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc supplement the MMC Act. The emphasis by Mr.Kumbhakoni that this provision in the MMRDA Act supplements the efforts of development of infrastructure and other related projects of public interest finds acceptance from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 17 and as emphasised above, the prior sections in the relevant Chapter itself. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 cannot be read in isolation. It will have to be read together and harmoniously with other sub-sections of Section 17. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that sections, sub-sections and parts thereof would have to be read together and harmoniously. So read, one can achieve the best. To harmonise is not to destroy. The attempt is, therefore, to harmonise the provisions or to read them harmoniously. There is no question of reading sub-section (2) as a standalone provision. Sub-section (2) itself refers to sub- section (1) of Section 17 and it is for a limited purpose of preparation and execution of a project or scheme contemplated by sub-section (1) that the Metropolitan Commissioner and the Authority shall be deemed to be the Municipal Commissioner and the Corporation respectively under the MMC Act and the MRTP Act, and shall, respectively, exercise the powers of the Municipal Commissioner and the Corporation under the said Acts. It is not a take over of the Municipality (Local Authority) and the Planning Authority at all. It is only to enable the MMRDA to effectively, M.M.Salgaonkar Judgment-WP-841-12+2.doc efficiently and properly exercise its powers to provide amenities within Brihan Mumbai that this ancillary or incidental power is conferred. This is an arrangement limited for the purposes of preparation and execution of projects or schemes under sub- section (1) of Section 17. If read with the explanation below sub- section (1) of Section 17, it is more than clear that the Municipal Commissioner and the Municipal Corporation retain their status as conferred on them by the MMC Act and Part IXA of the Constitution of India. The Municipal Corporation remains a unit of self-governance and is not denuded of its constitutional authority/validity. It continues to be endowed with the powers conferred by the Constitutional provisions. It continues to be responsible for providing the amenities as set out in the twelfth Schedule of the Constitution. Thus, the Constitutional scheme is, in no way, interfered with.