Bombay High Court Quashes BMC Notices to Acquire Private Factory Land for Connector Road; Holds Sections 297 and 299 Inapplicable Where No Public Street Exists
Bombay High Court Partly Allows Newkem’s Writ Petition; Quashes BMC Attempt to Take Private Factory Land for Gamdevi Road-Lake Road Connector
Facts
Newkem Products Corporation and its Managing Partner approached the Bombay High Court challenging action taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“BMC”) concerning property at Lake Road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai. The petition was registered as Writ Petition No. 540 of 2026.
The petitioners had been in exclusive use, possession and enjoyment since 1957 of property bearing CTS Nos. 204 and 204/1 to 6, admeasuring approximately 13,337 square metres, together with a factory and other structures standing on it.
The petitioners held a 25% undivided ownership interest and were lessees in respect of the remaining 75%. Their names were reflected in the property card and revenue records, while the sanctioned plans also showed the existence of their factory.
On 25 August 2022, BMC proposed increasing the road line of Aatmaram Bhoir Marg from 9.15 metres to 12.20 metres, with the stated objective of creating a connector between Gamdevi Road and Lake Road. A public notice proposing the 12.20-metre road line was subsequently issued on 5 July 2024.
The map reproduced on page 5 of the judgment shows the petitioners’ factory outlined in blue, the existing road approaching point C, and the proposed C-D alignment cutting through the factory property towards Lake Road. The judgment records that the existing A-B road, although sanctioned at 9.15 metres, was heavily encroached and at some locations was less than six metres wide. There was no existing road over part of B-D, and BMC proposed acquiring land between C and D to establish the connector.
After considering objections and conducting a public hearing, BMC issued a notice dated 1 April 2025 under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, requiring the petitioners to hand over possession of the C-D portion together with the enclosing wall, platform, verandah and other structures.
The petitioners challenged these notices before the Bombay High Court.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether BMC could invoke Sections 297 and 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to take possession of private land where no existing public street existed.
- Whether the C-D portion of the petitioners’ property could legally be treated as falling within the regular line of a public street merely because the proposed road appeared in the Development Plan.
- Whether BMC’s statutory power to prescribe or alter the regular line of a public street could be used to create an entirely new road through long-standing private factory premises.
- Whether the proposed connector between Gamdevi Road and Lake Road genuinely served the claimed public purpose of reducing traffic congestion and pollution.
- Whether the impact of the proposed road upon the petitioners’ functioning factory and infrastructure rendered BMC’s exercise of statutory power unsustainable.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the portion between points C and D was neither an existing road nor a public street. It was private property that had continuously remained in their exclusive possession and control, and the public had no easementary rights over it.
They contended that Sections 297(1)(b) and 299 could not be invoked because those provisions concern land associated with the regular line of an existing public street and could not be used to create a new road through private property. They relied upon the Bombay High Court’s decision in Steel Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1804.
The petitioners further demonstrated the severe practical consequences of the proposed alignment. It would split a functioning factory by separating:
- factory stores;
- workers’ canteen;
- administrative areas;
- discharge facilities; and
- loading and unloading areas
from the principal factory premises.
Two natural gas pipes, gas-metering infrastructure, electrical rooms and buried power cables were also located within the proposed alignment.
The petitioners also argued that the connector would save only approximately 400 metres, making the alleged public benefit insignificant compared with the disruption caused.
They alleged that the proposal had effectively been initiated at the instance of a nearby developer developing CTS No. 206, whose property already had access from Gamdevi Road but who sought access from two sides.
Respondents’ Arguments
BMC argued that the proposed connector road formed part of the Development Plan and that the Corporation had followed the statutory procedure.
A public notice had been issued, objections and suggestions invited, the concerned parties heard, and only thereafter was the possession notice dated 1 April 2025 issued.
BMC relied upon Sections 3(x), 291, 299 and 301 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and argued that the Corporation possessed the necessary statutory authority. It further submitted that the petitioners would receive compensation in accordance with law.
BMC maintained that the road would connect Gamdevi Road with Lake Road, reduce traffic congestion and pollution, and improve public access to the Japanese Garden situated on Gamdevi Road.
According to the Corporation, these larger public interests outweighed the petitioners’ private commercial interests.
Analysis of the Law
Section 297 — Regular Line of a Street
The High Court examined the scope of Section 297 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
It observed that Section 297(1)(a) expressly empowers the Municipal Commissioner to prescribe a regular line on each side of a public street.
Section 297(1)(b), in turn, permits the Commissioner to prescribe a fresh line in substitution for a road line already prescribed.
Thus, the statutory scheme presupposes the existence of a public street or previously prescribed road line.
Section 299 — Taking Possession of Land Within Regular Line
Section 299 permits the Commissioner, after following the prescribed procedure, to take possession of land lying within the regular line of a public street, subject to the statutory conditions.
The High Court did not dispute BMC’s general powers under Sections 297 and 299.
The decisive question was whether those powers could be invoked against the C-D portion, where there was no existing public road and the land formed an integral part of the petitioners’ private factory.
The Court answered this question against BMC.
Precedent Analysis
Steel Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1804
The petitioners relied upon the Coordinate Bench judgment in Steel Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in support of their contention that Sections 297 and 299 could not be invoked to take over private land that did not form part of an existing public street.
The present judgment itself does not undertake an extensive independent discussion of Steel Plant. Instead, the Court reaches its conclusion by construing the statutory language of Sections 297 and 299 against the undisputed physical characteristics of the C-D portion.
The core statutory distinction recognised by the Court was between altering or prescribing the regular line of an existing public street and using those provisions to take private land for establishing a new road where no public street presently exists.
Court’s Reasoning
1. C-D Was Private Factory Land, Not an Existing Road
The High Court regarded the factual position as undisputed.
The petitioners had possessed and enjoyed the property since 1957. The C-D portion formed part of their factory even though the Development Plan showed it as part of Aatmaram Bhoir Marg.
Most importantly, the existing road terminated at point C. There was no existing road between C and D.
Accordingly, BMC could not use Sections 297 and 299 to simply take possession of the C-D private land.
2. Proposed Road Would Dismember a Functioning Factory
The Court gave substantial weight to the physical consequences of the acquisition.
The proposed road would sever or materially interfere with the factory by separating its stores, workers’ canteen, administrative area and discharge facilities from the main factory. It would also interfere with loading and unloading operations.
The alignment additionally contained gas pipes, electrical rooms and buried power cables connected with the factory.
The Court characterised the practical consequence as one that would “substantially and actually dismember” the existing factory through the use of statutory provisions intended for land and structures falling within the regular line of a public street.
3. Claimed Public Benefit Was Unconvincing
The proposed connector would save merely 400 metres between Gamdevi Road and Lake Road.
At the same time, the existing Aatmaram Bhoir Marg was already heavily encroached. Although sanctioned at 9.15 metres, its actual width was below six metres at several places.
Crucially, BMC had placed no material before the Court showing what steps it had taken to restore even the existing 9.15-metre width.
In those circumstances, the Court found no realistic basis for BMC’s contention that creating the connector through the petitioners’ property would reduce traffic congestion or pollution or improve access to the municipal garden.
The Court therefore stated:
“We do not see how public interest will be sub-served”
by acquiring the petitioners’ land.
4. Nearby Developer’s Interest
The Court also found “some merit” in the petitioners’ submission that the entire exercise may have been initiated at the instance of the developer of nearby CTS No. 206, who sought connectivity from two sides instead of only from Gamdevi Road.
The Court additionally noted that BMC itself relied upon a representation made by an elected representative regarding the proposal.
Against this factual background, the Court held that the statutory powers under Sections 297 and 299 could not be extended to such an exercise.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition.
It quashed and set aside BMC’s notices dated 5 July 2024 and 1 April 2025, insofar as they sought possession of the petitioners’ private land between points C and D for the proposed connector road.
The Court thus held that although BMC undoubtedly possesses statutory powers to prescribe regular street lines and take possession of qualifying land, Sections 297 and 299 cannot be used to acquire private land beyond the existing public street for the purpose of creating a new road through a long-established factory.
The connected intervention applications were consequently disposed of.
Case Details
Case: Newkem Products Corporation & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 540 of 2026
Judges: Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Reserved On: 5 August 2026
Date: 11 August 2026
Result: Petition partly allowed; BMC notices quashed insofar as they sought possession of the C-D portion of the petitioners’ private factory land under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
