Supreme Court Upholds Alternative Site Allotment for Demolished Structures: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Municipal Corporation can demolish structures without following due process and without providing alternative accommodation to affected tenants. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. vs. Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 31 January 2020

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2020
Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format.
Judges: N.V. Ramana, Vineet Saran, V. Ramasubramanian. The judgment was authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Can a municipal corporation demolish structures without following due process and without providing alternative accommodation to affected tenants? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The court examined the legality of demolitions carried out by the corporation and the rights of the affected tenants and landowners. This case highlights the importance of adhering to due process and protecting the rights of citizens when carrying out development projects.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case revolves around the demolition of superstructures on a plot of land in Mumbai. The land, bearing CTS Nos. 4009/1 to 4009/7, was located in Village Dahisar. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai undertook the demolition for road widening purposes. The affected parties included both tenants and the landowners. The tenants claimed they were forcibly evicted without due process, while the landowners sought compensation for their land. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay had previously ruled in favor of the tenants and landowners, directing the Municipal Corporation to provide alternative sites and consider TDR/DRC.

Timeline:

Date	Event
1955	Family of Dattatray Mahadev Angare put up 11 structures on the land.
1961	Superstructures were assessed by the Municipal Corporation.
1974	Municipal Commissioner prescribed a Regular Line for Padmakar Javle Road, widening it to 13.40 meters.
13.02.1979	Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, claiming 3 structures were illegally constructed.
1983	Upon the death of Dattatray Mahadev Angare, his wife Sushila was recorded as the owner in revenue records.
15.03.1995	Sushila Angare died, and her legal heirs, including her son Suresh Angare, were entered in the revenue records.
31.01.2008	Suresh Angare died, leaving behind his widow and two sons.
10.03.2010	Deputy Collector and Competent Authority Borivali stated that the ownership of the land affected by road widening vested with the State Government.
23.06.2008	Municipal Corporation issued notice to four tenants for alternate accommodation at Anand Nagar Municipal Market.
02.07.2016	Municipal Corporation issued a notice to four tenants offering fresh allotment in the Municipal Retail Market.
11.04.2017	Corporation cancelled the allotments on the ground that the allottees did not take possession.
11.10.2017	Corporation issued a fresh notice to four tenants to vacate the premises within seven days.
26.10.2017	Municipal Corporation officials demolished the superstructures, forcibly removing all eleven tenants.
11.11.2017	First respondent in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18376 of 2018 attended a meeting regarding TDR, but did not follow up.
30.07.2018	Supreme Court granted a stay of operation of the impugned judgment.
05.12.2018	Supreme Court disposed of four special leave petitions and directed the Secretary of the Bombay High Court Legal Services Committee to examine the eligibility of other tenants.
07.02.2019	Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay filed a report.
31.01.2020	Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard a batch of twelve writ petitions challenging the demolition of superstructures. The High Court found that the Municipal Corporation had not followed due process of law before demolishing the structures. The High Court directed the Municipal Corporation to allot tenements of equal size to the demolished tenements to the tenants, free of cost, in the vicinity of the demolished premises and also directed the Municipal Corporation to consider the application of the land owners for grant of TDR/DRC. The Municipal Corporation then filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, specifically Section 351, which deals with notices for illegal constructions. The court also considered the Slum Act and the rights of tenants and landowners affected by development projects. The court also considered the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal.

Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was invoked by the Municipal Corporation in 1979, when it issued a notice claiming that 3 of the structures were illegally constructed and liable to be demolished. The relevant part of the provision is not mentioned in the source document.

Arguments

Arguments by the Municipal Corporation:

The Municipal Corporation argued that the High Court overlooked their readiness to grant TDR to the original owner of the land.
They contended that the High Court should not have overlooked the prescription of a Regular Line in 1974 for the widening of the road.
The Corporation claimed that the tenants did not fulfill the parameters fixed by the Municipal Corporation for the grant of alternate accommodation.
They also argued that the findings of the High Court Legal Services Committee were not supported by documentary evidence.
The Municipal Corporation stated that out of the 11 structures demolished, 4 were found to belong to persons who were eligible for alternative accommodation, but they did not accept it.
They contended that the remaining structures were illegal shanties, and the names of the persons claiming to be the owners of these shanties are not reflected in Annexure II prepared by the Deputy Collector.
The Corporation was willing to grant TDR to the original owner of the plot of land which is affected by the road widening scheme.

Arguments by the Respondents (Tenants and Landowners):

The respondents argued that the Municipal Corporation demolished their structures without following due process of law.
They contended that the superstructures were in existence from a period prior to 1961 and were assessed by the Municipal Corporation.
The tenants claimed that they were forcibly evicted and their structures were demolished without being given the opportunity to remove their belongings.
The landowners argued that they were the rightful owners of the land and were entitled to compensation or TDR for the land acquired for road widening.
The tenants argued that they were eligible for permanent alternative accommodation as they have produced electricity bills, Gumasta Licenses, etc., from a period prior to 1995.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions by Municipal Corporation	Sub-Submissions by Respondents
Demolition without Due Process	The Corporation followed due process. The structures were illegal.	The demolitions were carried out in a high-handed manner. No prior notice was given to the tenants.
Eligibility for Alternative Accommodation	Tenants did not meet eligibility criteria. Some structures were illegal shanties. The Corporation was willing to grant TDR to the original owner of the plot of land.	Tenants were eligible for alternative accommodation. Superstructures were assessed by the Corporation since 1961. The landowners were entitled to TDR for the land acquired for road widening.
High Court’s Order	High Court overlooked the Corporation’s readiness to grant TDR. High Court overlooked the prescription of a Regular Line in 1974.	High Court’s order was fair and just. The order balanced private and public interests.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

Whether the High Court was right in directing the Municipal Corporation to provide alternative accommodation to the tenants whose structures were demolished.
Whether the High Court was right in directing the Municipal Corporation to consider the application of the land owners for grant of TDR/DRC.
Whether the Municipal Corporation followed due process of law before demolishing the structures.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issues:

Issue	Court’s Treatment
Whether the High Court was right in directing the Municipal Corporation to provide alternative accommodation to the tenants whose structures were demolished.	The Court upheld the High Court’s direction, noting that the Municipal Corporation had acted in a high-handed manner and that the tenants were entitled to alternative accommodation.
Whether the High Court was right in directing the Municipal Corporation to consider the application of the land owners for grant of TDR/DRC.	The Court upheld the High Court’s direction, noting that the Municipal Corporation itself had conceded that they were willing to offer TDR to the landowners.
Whether the Municipal Corporation followed due process of law before demolishing the structures.	The Court found that the Municipal Corporation had not followed due process of law and that the demolitions were carried out in a high-handed manner.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act: This section deals with notices for illegal constructions. The Municipal Corporation had issued a notice under this section in 1979, claiming that 3 of the structures were illegally constructed.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court considered this provision while deciding whether to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.

Authority	How it was used by the Court
Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act	The Court noted that the Municipal Corporation had invoked this provision in 1979, but did not find that it justified the high-handed manner in which the demolitions were carried out.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India	The Court considered this provision while deciding whether to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, and ultimately decided not to interfere.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How it was treated by the Court
Municipal Corporation’s readiness to grant TDR to the original owner of the land.	The Court noted that the Municipal Corporation had conceded this point and should not have filed a special leave petition on this issue.
Municipal Corporation’s argument that the High Court overlooked the prescription of a Regular Line in 1974.	The Court did not find this argument to be a valid reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.
Municipal Corporation’s claim that the tenants did not fulfill the parameters for alternate accommodation.	The Court noted that the Municipal Corporation itself had agreed that four of the tenants were eligible for alternate accommodation, and later conceded that three more were eligible.
Respondents’ argument that the demolitions were carried out without due process.	The Court agreed with this argument and found that the Municipal Corporation had acted in a high-handed manner.
Respondents’ claim that the superstructures were in existence from a period prior to 1961.	The Court upheld the finding of the Legal Services Committee that the superstructures were in existence from a period prior to 1961.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act: The Court acknowledged the invocation of this provision by the Municipal Corporation but did not find it a justification for the high-handed demolitions.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India: The Court used this provision to determine that the findings of the High Court were not perverse and did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

The high-handed manner in which the Municipal Corporation carried out the demolitions, without following due process of law.
The fact that the Municipal Corporation had conceded that some of the tenants were eligible for alternative accommodation.
The findings of the High Court Legal Services Committee that the superstructures were in existence from a period prior to 1961.
The fact that the Municipal Corporation had agreed to offer TDR to the landowners.

Sentiment	Percentage
High-Handed Demolition by Municipal Corporation	30%
Eligibility of Tenants for Alternative Accommodation	30%
Existence of Superstructures Prior to 1961	20%
Municipal Corporation’s Concession on TDR	20%

Category	Percentage
Fact	60%
Law	40%

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the high-handed manner of the demolitions and the eligibility of the tenants, than by purely legal considerations.

Issue: Was the High Court correct in directing alternative accommodation for tenants?

↓

Municipal Corporation demolished structures in a high-handed manner.

↓

Legal Services Committee found structures existed before 1961.

↓

Some tenants were already deemed eligible by the Corporation.

↓

Conclusion: High Court’s direction for alternative accommodation was upheld.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual findings that the demolitions were carried out in a high-handed manner, and that the tenants were eligible for alternative accommodation. The Court also noted that the Municipal Corporation had conceded that some of the tenants were eligible for alternative accommodation and that the landowners were entitled to TDR. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

“The High Court has recorded a finding of fact that the Municipal Corporation demolished the superstructures and took possession in a high handed manner.”

“The Legal Services Committee has recorded a finding that the superstructures were in existence from a period prior to 1961.”

“Therefore, we find absolutely no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

Municipal corporations must follow due process of law before demolishing structures.
Tenants affected by demolitions are entitled to alternative accommodation if they meet the eligibility criteria.
Landowners affected by road widening projects are entitled to compensation or TDR.
High-handed actions by municipal authorities will not be tolerated by the courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific new directions but upheld the directions of the High Court, which included:

The Municipal Corporation to allot tenements of equal size to the demolished tenements to the tenants, free of cost, in the vicinity of the demolished premises.
The Municipal Corporation to consider the application of the land owners for grant of TDR/DRC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that municipal corporations must follow due process of law before demolishing structures and that tenants and landowners affected by such actions are entitled to alternative accommodation and compensation, respectively. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the case reinforces the importance of adhering to due process and protecting the rights of citizens.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, upholding the High Court’s order to provide alternative accommodation to the affected tenants and consider TDR/DRC for the landowners. The court emphasized that municipal corporations cannot act in a high-handed manner and must follow due process of law when carrying out development projects.

Source: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave