The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Samarath Development Corporation (plaintiffs) regarding the ownership of a 158.05-acre plot of land within a No Development Zone (NDZ) in Mumbai. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the land, while the MCGM sought to construct a Storm Water Pumping Station (SWPS) on the property for public welfare. The MCGM contended that the land belongs to the state government, not the plaintiffs. The court initially granted an injunction preventing MCGM from entering the land. MCGM appealed, offering to deposit ₹33 crores in compensation, allowing them to proceed with the public project. The court weighed public interest and allowed MCGM to proceed, subject to conditions.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff: Samarath Development Corporation
   • Defendant: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM)

2. Land Ownership Dispute:

   • The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a 158.05-acre plot located in the NDZ in Mumbai, which included Mogra Nallah.
   • The MCGM disputed this claim, arguing that the state government owned the land, including the nallah/creek.

3. Project of Public Interest:

   • MCGM sought to construct a Storm Water Pumping Station (SWPS) amid the nallah to control recurrent flooding in the area and to prevent pollution from solid waste entering the sea.
   • MCGM had obtained clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for this construction.

4. Injunction and Appeal:

   • The court initially granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining MCGM from entering the land until compensation was paid.
   • MCGM appealed the decision, offering to deposit ₹33 crores as compensation to the court, requesting to proceed with the construction in the public interest.

5. Court’s Decision:

   • The court vacated the injunction, allowing MCGM to proceed with the construction of the SWPS, citing the significant public interest involved in flood mitigation and pollution control.
   • The court ordered MCGM to deposit the compensation amount, subject to final determination of land ownership in the ongoing suit.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act):

   • Section 527: MCGM argued the suit was not maintainable without a notice under this section, but the court held that the plaintiffs also sought a declaration of ownership, not just an injunction.

2. Registration Act, 1908:

   • Section 17(2)(vi): The court discussed whether the consent decrees related to the land should have been registered, as they involved a conveyance of property rights.

3. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code:

   • Section 20: The state claimed ownership of the land, arguing that public roads, ditches, and water bodies like nallahs or creeks are vested in the state government.

4. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

   • The plaintiffs argued that compensation and solatium must be paid before any construction work proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court’s primary reasoning focused on the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. It found that public interest in flood prevention and environmental protection outweighed the private ownership claims. Although the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of ownership, they did not prove that the balance of convenience was in their favor or that they would suffer irreparable injury. Thus, the court vacated the injunction and allowed the public project to proceed, subject to securing compensation for the plaintiffs.