Bombay High Court directs garage owner to hand over land to MMRDA for Oshiwara road construction

In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and directed a garage owner to relinquish possession of a piece of land within two weeks. The land is earmarked for the construction of a 25-meter road in Oshiwara. The court, comprising Chief Justice RD Dhanuka and Justice Girish Kulkarni, dismissed the petition filed by Mohamed Nagori, who had challenged the notice issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) asking him to vacate the premises.

The High Court stated, "Considering the nature of the public project and the larger public interest, we cannot grant a longer time as requested by the petitioner, who was aware of the public project 11 years ago. The society's larger public interest needs to prevail. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to hand over possession of the land to respondent no.1 within two weeks from today."

Nagori had claimed leasehold rights to the garage. However, MMRDA recognized Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. as the owner of the land for the purpose of compensation in terms of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and Floor Space Index (FSI).

The MMRDA had initially issued a notice to Nagori on January 30, 2012, asking him to vacate the premises, which went unchallenged. As Nagori failed to comply, a fresh notice was issued on May 19, 2023.

Nagori's advocates, Drupad Patil and Hitesh Jain, clarified that their client did not oppose the project and was willing to vacate the structure in question for the betterment of society. However, Nagori claimed that MMRDA had not provided any details regarding the rehabilitation tenement. He asserted his entitlement to monetary compensation for the loss or damage caused by the removal of the structure.

Patil further argued that Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. could not claim the entire compensation. However, the court declined to decide on the apportionment of compensation or any entitlement in this petition.

The court dismissed Nagori's claim that he should receive compensation before vacating the land, deeming it "totally untenable." The bench stated, "There cannot be quid pro quo of such a nature as advocated by the petitioner, particularly when the project in question is in the interest of the public at large, and considering that the petitioner had accepted the notice dated January 30, 2012."

The bench noted that Nagori's representation to MMRDA in 2019 for rehabilitation further indicated his acceptance of the 2012 notice. Consequently, the court dismissed the plea.