MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (EAST-I) versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 28-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (EAST-I)
v.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIHANMUMBAI
MAHANAGARPALIKA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6745 of 2009)
APRIL 28, 2022
[K.M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Municipalities – Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 –
ss. 297, 299 and 301 – Powers of the municipal body to maintain
regular street line – Road line was fixed by the Municipal
Corporation long back in the year 1988 by following procedure u/
s.297 – Subsequently, Respondents served Notice dated 27.09.2006
upon appellant u/s.299 for taking possession of land – Another
notice served on 01.03.2008 calling upon the appellant to surrender
land as demanded in the previous notice – Appellant approached
High Court for quashing and setting aside the said two notices
dated 27.09.2006 and 01.03.2008 – High Court rejected the writ
petition – Appellant raised various contentions before Supreme
Court, firstly, no compensation was awarded in respect of earlier
surrender of land when land was handed for fixation of road line
in 1988; secondly, impugned notices were unsustainable in terms
of s.299(2) as sanction was not obtained from Central Government
before issuing notice; thirdly, procedure contemplated u/s.297(1),viz.
issuance of public notice for fixation of road line was not carried
out; and lastly, representation / objections of the appellant were
not considered – Held: Not much material to show that appellant
had been pursuing the issue relating to non-payment of
compensation for the earlier surrender of land – Appellant cannot
now introduce said aspect for purpose of impugning the notices in
question – Sanction u/s.299 is required only against taking
possession of the land and building vested in a corporation
constituted by law – Appellant was incorporated as a public limited
company and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 – This
cannot make it a corporation established by the law – So far as
procedure contemplated u/s.297 is concerned, the High Court
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1045
1045
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
apparently was seized of the said aspect as it found that regular
line was fixed in the year 1988 by following the procedure –
Appellant did surrender land based on the earlier demand and there
was no case at that stage that the regular line was fixed without
conforming to the mandate of s.297 – Also, the appellant does not
have a case that after the fixation of the regular line in the year
1988 as found by the High Court, there was a variation or change
in the regular line and the same forms the basis for the impugned
notices in the present case – Though appellant contended that there
were vital installations and any interference with the same would
prejudice the rights of many subscribers, besides interrupting the
operations of the appellant, however, the issue raised relates to
powers of the municipal body to maintain the regular street line
which, in turn, is put in place to secure the highest public interest –
This was thus an action on the part of the respondents which cannot
be interfered with lightly – Public interest.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 As regards the question regarding the payment
of compensation in regard to earlier surrender of land, the
appellant cannot introduce the said aspect for the purpose of
impugning the notices in question. However, in case, the appellant
has not been paid the compensation already due to it for the
earlier surrender of 387.5 square meters area and if the appellant
has already not made any application under Section 301 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, if the appellant makes
an application within a period of one month from today, the said
application will be processed and taken to its logical conclusion
in this regard. [Paras 9, 15][1053-F; 1059-E-F]
1.2. A perusal of Section 299 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act would show that what the provison provides can
be stated as follows: If the land which is what is referred to in sub
section (1) is not vested in the corporation and it is falls within
the regular line and there is no building thereon, then possession
can be taken as provided in sub section (1) without the previous
sanction of the Government. Under the proviso, if the land or
building is vested in the government then previous sanction of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
the government is necessary. It is not the appellant’s case that
there is a building.  Also, the case of the appellant is that 

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