Road to Mahakali caves: SC upholds Bombay HC order on land acquisition

Road to Mahakali caves: SC upholds Bombay HC order on land acquisition

The judgment was pronounced on Friday by Justice Surya Kant, sitting on a bench with Justice Jamshed B Pardiwala

FPJ BureauUpdated: Sunday, September 04, 2022, 05:53 PM IST
article-image
Supreme Court of India | PTI

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court's May 30 ruling on the acquisition of a part of Dr Abraham Patani's property for construction of a new road to connect the Mahakali Caves in Andheri (East), Mumbai.

The judgment was pronounced on Friday by Justice Surya Kant, sitting on a bench with Justice Jamshed B Pardiwala.

The genesis of the dispute spans several decades, including one prior round of litigation before the Supreme Court. His property was acquired in 1959 and the 'INGA Building' was constructed on it in 1965. On his objection in 1992, the planned road was deleted from the development plan in that year.

The residents in the surrounding areas demanded a road to connect the Mahakali Caves. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) acknowledged the need for a connecting road but held it was "not feasible" to build an 18.30-metre wide road through Dr Patani's land. He built a bungalow on the land in 1994 and resides there.

The BMC, however, rejected sanctions sought by him to build more buildings.

In 1999, the acquisition of the land in public interest began. The owner challenged it as also the award of compensation. He, however, secured status quo from the top court on September 22, 2008.

Extending the status quo till the final judgment of the High Court, the top court requested the High Court in December 2019 to finally decide the matter.

The court debate went on over a clash on the overlap between two laws, but it accepted that the plan for the road through the property is mapped to ensure it will not disturb the buildings on it.

In its 61-page judgment, the Bench stressed that the rights of the individual must only be watered down when the necessary circumstances demanding such a drastic measure exists. It said this is an instance where public interest must have paramountcy over private interest.

RECENT STORIES

Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy In Family Assets Case

Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy In Family Assets Case

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...