DR. ABRAHAM PATANI OF MUMBAI & ANR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 02-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 1045
1045
DR. ABRAHAM PATANI OF MUMBAI & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5929 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 – ss. 37(1),
126- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - ss. 61(m), 63,
90(1) & (3), 91, 291, 296- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4, 5A,
6, 11-Land Acquisition – Conflict between two statutes – Harmonious
Construction – Public Interest – Colourable exercise of power-
Appellants opposed the construction of road on their land by
Respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation of Mumbai) proposed
in Development Plan (DP) - Respondent No. 1 issued a directive
under S. 37(1) of Act, 1966 acknowledging the need for a
connecting road but stating that it was “not feasible” to pursue
construction of an 18.30 metre road through the Appellants’ land –
Respondent No. 2 renewed the proposal to have the link road
constructed through Appellants’ land under Sec. 126 of the MRTP
Act and ss. 90(1) & (3) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
(MMC) – To acquire appellants’ land, Office of the Chief Engineer
(Development Plan) forwarded an application to Respondent No. 1
seeking to initiate proceedings under Land Acquisition Act,1894 -
Appellants filed a Notice of Motion in the already pending Writ,
seeking to restrain Respondent No. 2 - Notice dismissed by the High
Court - Acquisition exercise under the LAA was put in motion -
Respondent No. 10 and 11 issued notifications under ss. 4 and 6 of
the LAAct directing that Appellants’ land be acquired in public interest
- Appellants’ interim prayer for status quo vis-à-vis the property was
rejected by the High Court – High Court through the final judgment
affirmed the need to acquire Appellants’ land for construction of
the link road in public interest- High Court held that MMC Act
conferred Respondent No. 2 with the power to acquire land and
build a new road which required neither prior permission from the
State Govt., nor for the road itself to be reflected in the DP- MMC
Act and MRTP Act are distinct, and the powers granted to
Respondent No. 2 under the former would not be impliedly repealed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
by the latter merely because it was a subsequent statute- Whether
there is conflict between MMC and MRTP Act - Held: Merely because
both statutes are concerned with land acquisition, may not
necessarily result in conflict between them- Court’s endeavour shall
always be to harmoniously construct such provisions so that the
legislative intent underlying both statutes can be fulfilled - There is
no direct or indirect bar on the exercise of powers under ss. 91,
291(a), and 296 of the MMC Act. - Not only does the State Govt.
first evaluate the application under S. 91, but S. 5A of LAA also
permits the landowners themselves to air their grievances -The two
statutes exist side-by-side with some degree of overlap- Procedural
rules must not be allowed to defeat the basic purpose of a statute -
In several situations, the needs of the many must outweigh that of
the few- Notion of public interest will necessarily reflect the
specificities of the situation at hand-the present case to be an
appropriate instance where public interest must have paramountcy
over private interest-The procedure contemplated under Section 91
of the MMC Act to commence proceedings under the LAA for
procuring land was substantially complied with- Respondent No. 2
validly exercised its powers under the MMC Act to direct the
acquisition of the Appellants’ land.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under the MMC Act, the power to make a new
public street is derived from S. 291. For the purpose of making a
new street, S. 296 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to
acquire land, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in
Ss. 90-92. There is certain degree of overlap between these
provisions, and S. 37 of the MRTP Act as they deal with
procurement of land. The latter is relevant in the context of a DP
whereas the MMC Act regulates the manner in which the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation operates. Merely because both statutes
are concerned with land acquisition, may not necessarily result
in conflict between them. [Paras 23-24][1064-C-D, E-F]
1.2 Provisions of one statute should not be construed or
interpreted in a manner that they render redundant the provisions
in another statute. The Court’s endeavour shall always be to
harmonious

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.