Bombay High Court Upholds Land Acquisition for Bhendi Bazaar Cluster Development Under MRTP Act
The Bombay High Court has held that land required for a public purpose under a Development Control Regulation, which is part of the development plan, can be validly acquired under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat rejected the argument that only land 'reserved' or 'designated' can be acquired, saying the petitioners had ignored the word 'required' in Sections 125 and 126 of the Act.
The case concerned the Cluster Development Scheme in Bhendi Bazaar, Mumbai. The petitioners, owners of the Lucky Building and the Dhanwadi Mohallah Mosque Waqf, challenged Regulation 33(9)(3)(5), a Collector's notification dated September 27, 2019, an award dated December 30, 2019, and a possession notice. The Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust had secured development rights over about 93 percent of the cluster, and the petitioners were among the roughly 7 percent non-consenting owners. Possession was taken on February 3, 2020, and the building was demolished in August 2023.
The Court held that the Cluster Development Scheme is a public purpose and cannot be branded as a scheme for the benefit of the Trust. It noted that Development Control Regulations are framed under Section 159 read with Section 22(m) of the MRTP Act, so they form part of the development plan. The regulation was made through the Section 37(1AA) process and contains sufficient guidelines, so there was no excessive delegation. It qualified as 'law' under Article 300A, and the Trust bore the compensation cost. The building was a pre-1940 cessed building, treated as dangerous, and 'Collector' includes the Deputy Collector. Compensation grievances lie in a Section 64 reference.
The Court also rejected a plea by the Dhanwadi Mohallah Mosque Waqf under Section 91 of the Waqf Act, 1995. It cited Section 91(4), which allows an order passed under the Land Acquisition Act or corresponding law to be declared void if the Waqf Board, within one month of coming to know of the order, applies to the authority that passed it. The Bench noted that the Waqf Board did not make any such application, much less within one month. In its reply affidavit in Writ Petition No. 4762 of 2024, the Waqf Board categorically stated it had no objection to the acquisition and had notice of it.
The first petition had come up on an interim order against dispossession, which a Division Bench vacated on July 21, 2023. The Supreme Court declined to interfere on August 21, 2023, leaving all contentions open. The second petition added the waqf ground in 2024. The petitions were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The petitioners remain at liberty to pursue their Section 64 reference.
Advocate Sagheer A. Khan appeared for the petitioners, while Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General, appeared for the respondents.
Source: Verdictum