19 September 2024 Property Law >> Personal Law  

In a recent legal proceeding of Manjit Singh Virdi & Others v/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai & Others, the Petitioners sought significant reliefs from the Hon'ble Court regarding the Town Planning Scheme III (Mahim Division) and specifically concerning Final Plot No. 838. The Court was petitioned to issue a Writ of Certiorari to examine the records related to the Town Planning Scheme and to issue a Writ of Mandamus to ensure the handover of vacant possession of Final Plot No. 838 to the Petitioners.

Background:

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) is the planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP). The Petitioners claimed that they were entitled to Final Plot No. 838, originally Plot No. 88B, measuring 280 square yards, which was subsequently expanded to 695 square yards under the town planning scheme. The Petitioners asserted that their rights derived from a lease agreement from 1948, which had been assigned to them.

Key Arguments:

Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Sanglikar, argued that the MCGM had a duty to enforce the Town Planning Scheme and provide the Petitioners with possession of the final plot, emphasizing that they had been in continuous possession of the original plot. She contended that while the original plot was 280 square yards, the reconstitution into Final Plot No. 838 entitled them to an additional 415 square yards that was currently encroached upon.

Respondents’ Defense:

On the other hand, Mr. Sakhare, representing the MCGM, countered that the lease originally granted to the Petitioners (through assignments) pertained solely to the original 280 square yards. He highlighted that there was no legal basis for the Petitioners to claim ownership of the larger plot, as the MCGM merely reconstituted plots for planning purposes without conferring any additional rights to the Petitioners.

Legal Analysis:

The Court’s analysis revealed critical points regarding the Petitioners’ claims. The lease agreement dated November 8, 1948, was for a term of 30 years, and there were uncertainties surrounding its renewal. The Court noted that the Petitioners had only demonstrated rights over the original plot and not the expanded final plot.

Sections of the MRTP:

The provisions of Sections 88, 89, and 90 of the MRTP were central to the arguments. Section 88 stipulates that upon the implementation of a town planning scheme, all rights in the original plots cease, and new rights must be determined by an arbitrator. The Petitioners failed to establish that the arbitrator had recognized their rights in the newly constituted Final Plot No. 838.

Comparison with Precedent:

The Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Advance Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd., where the MCGM was mandated to enforce the town planning scheme. However, the current case differed significantly; the Petitioners did not have established rights over the larger area and were not directly impacted by the alleged encroachments beyond their original plot.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Petition, concluding that the Petitioners had not substantiated their claims to any area beyond the original 280 square yards. The reliefs sought could not be granted, particularly in the absence of clear legal rights to the larger plot and the lack of impleading alleged encroachers in the proceedings. This case underscores the complexities involved in property rights under town planning schemes and highlights the necessity for claimants to provide clear evidence of entitlement when seeking judicial relief.