INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANR. versus THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 05-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
INDIAN CITY PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GREATER 
BOMBAY AND ANR. 
AUGUST 5, 2005 
[MRS. RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-Sections 3(s) and (sb), 296 
and 299-Notice issued by Municipal Commissioner to owner of the premises 
for acquiring certain land not occupied by the building falling within the 
regular line of a street under section 299 of the Act-Writ Petition before 
High Court by the owner challe1Jging the notice-High Court dismissed the 
Writ Petition holding that the structures proposed to be acquired under the 
notice are structures external to the building and hence liable for acquisition-
Correctness of-Held, on facts, the structure proposed to be acquired are 
independent permanent structures forming part of the building and are not 
structures external to the building and hence not liable to be acquired under 
section 299 of the Act. 
Appellant No. l owned a plot in Mumbai which consisted of a 
bungalow, an out-house, cooling towers, a pump room, servants' quarters 
and a watchman's room. The premises was let out to appellant no. 2. 
Respondent-Municipal Commissioner issued a notice to the appellants 
under section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for 
acquisition of certain land not occupied by a building forming part of the 
premises within the regular line of public street. The notice also stated 
that the Municipal Commissioner would proceed to clear the building if 
necessary. The appellants filed a Writ Petition before High Court 
challenging the notice issued by the 'Municipal Commissioner. The High 
Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the property and verify 
whether the proposed acquisition affected any of the structures of the 
appellants. The Commissioner, after inspection, submitted a Report to 
the High Court, stating that the proposed acquisition affected six 
permanent structures in the premises of the appellants. The High Court 
dismissed the Writ Petition holding the six structures to be 'other 
structures' external to the main building within the meaning of Section 
H 
299 of the Act and are thus liable for acquisition. 
372 
INDiAN CITY PROPERTIES LID. r. MUNICIPAL COMMNR. OF GREATER BOMBAY 3 73 
Jn appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the structures 
A 
mentioned by the Commissioner in his Report are 'building' under section 
3(s) of the Act of which possession could not be taken under section 299 
of the Act; 
The respondents contended that the definition of the word 'building' 
in section 3(s) of the Act was subject to the context to the contrary and 
that the structures mentioned in the Commissioner's Report were 
structures in respect of which proceedings could be taken under section 
299 of the Act; that the expression 'other structure external to a building' 
in section 299 of the Act means such other structures which are not part 
B 
of the main building; that the word 'building' in section 299 must be 
C 
understood in the context of the Floor Space Index (FSI) as provided 
under Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991; that 
no FSI is exhausted by the structures proposed to be acquired; and that 
the land beneath such structures were considered to be vacant. The 
Corporation conceded that it was willing either to grant F.S.I. in terms 
of Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 or pay 
compensation to the appellants in respect of loss or damage which may 
be suffered by reason of the widening of the street. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I.I. The definition of 'building' in Section 3(s) of Mumbai 
Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 is in terms an inclusive one and is 
therefore to be widely construed. It seems to indicate that a structure 
would be building if it has been erected by the use of whatever material, 
which may or may not be used by human beings since it specifies stables 
and tanks as buildings. When the Act separately defines a 'temporary 
building' in section 3(sb) as opposed to a 'building', it indicates that, in 
the absence of the word 'temporary' in a particular section, what is meant 
is a permanent building. 1379-A-B; D-E] 
D 
E 
F 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Indian Oil Corporation 
G 
Limited, (19911 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 18, referred to. 
1.2 The word 'structure' in section 299 of the Act is used as a 
generic term so that while all buildings may be structures, all struc

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