The Bombay High Court has quashed notices issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) that sought to take over a portion of private factory land in Bhandup (West) for creating a road connector. The Court held that the civic body cannot invoke provisions meant for regular lines of public streets to acquire land that forms an integral part of a long-established private factory.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad delivered the judgment on 11 August 2026 in Writ Petition No. 540 of 2026 filed by Newkem Products Corporation and its managing partner Nimish Sura.
Background of the Dispute
Newkem Products Corporation has been in exclusive possession and use of land bearing CTS Nos. 204 and 204/1 to 6, measuring approximately 13,337 square metres at Lake Road, Bhandup (West), since 1957. The property houses a functioning factory along with related structures. The petitioners hold a 25% undivided ownership interest and are lessees of the remaining 75%. Their names stand mutated in the property records.
In August 2022, the BMC proposed widening Aatmaram Bhoir Marg from the existing Development Plan width of 9.15 metres to 12.20 metres. The stated purpose was to create a connector between Gamdevi Road and Lake Road. A public notice was issued on 5 July 2024 showing the proposed regular line marked A-B-C-D. This was followed by a possession notice dated 1 April 2025 under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, calling upon the petitioners to hand over the land between points C and D along with the enclosing wall, hedge, platform, verandah and other external structures.
The existing stretch of Aatmaram Bhoir Marg between points A and B is already heavily encroached and is less than 6 metres wide at several places, despite being sanctioned as 9.15 metres. There is no existing road between points C and D; that portion forms part of the petitioners’ factory premises.
Petitioners’ Challenge
Senior Advocate Dinyar Madon, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the land between points C and D is private property and has never been a public street. The public has no easementary rights over it. Taking over this portion would split the factory, separating the stores, workers’ canteen, administrative area, discharge facilities and loading-unloading space from the main production area. Critical infrastructure, including natural gas pipes, electrical rooms and buried power cables, also lies within the proposed alignment.
The petitioners contended that Sections 297 and 299 of the MMC Act cannot be used for land that is not part of an existing public street. They relied on the earlier coordinate bench decision in Steel Plant Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. They further submitted that the proposed connector would save only about 400 metres and that the entire exercise appeared to be influenced by a nearby developer seeking dual access to his plot and a representation made by an elected representative.
BMC’s Stand
Senior Advocate Girish Godbole, appearing for the BMC, submitted that the proposal forms part of the Development Plan and that the prescribed procedure of public notice, invitation of objections and hearing had been followed. He argued that the connector would reduce traffic congestion and pollution, provide better access to the Japanese Garden on Gamdevi Road, and serve a larger public interest. The Corporation maintained that the petitioners would be compensated under the Act and that the Commissioner has ample powers under Sections 297, 299 and related provisions.
Court’s Key Observations
The Court accepted that the petitioners have been in continuous exclusive possession of the property since 1957 and that the disputed stretch between points C and D forms an integral part of their factory, even though it is shown as part of the road in the Development Plan.
The bench held that while the Commissioner has powers under Sections 297 and 299 of the MMC Act, those powers cannot be stretched to take private land that is not part of an existing public street. The existing road terminates at point C. There is no public street between C and D.
The Court noted that the proposed acquisition would substantially dismember a functioning factory by separating essential operational components and affecting critical utilities. Section 299 is intended for land and structures falling within the regular line of a public street in the situations contemplated by the statute, not for this kind of private industrial land.
On the question of public purpose, the Court observed that the connector would save merely 400 metres. The existing road is already heavily encroached, and the BMC has not placed any material on record showing steps taken to restore even the sanctioned 9.15-metre width. In these circumstances, the Court found little realistic prospect of the proposed road reducing congestion or pollution or meaningfully improving public access.
The bench also noted that there was some merit in the petitioners’ submission that the exercise appeared to have been initiated at the instance of a nearby developer of CTS No. 206 and on the basis of a representation by an elected representative. Statutory powers under Sections 297 and 299 cannot be extended to such an exercise, the Court held.
Outcome of the Petition
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It quashed and set aside the impugned notices dated 5 July 2024 and 1 April 2025 insofar as they sought possession of the petitioners’ land between points C and D shown in the plan. Related interim applications filed by Marshal SRA Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and members of the Gawand family were disposed of as not surviving.
The judgment underscores the limits on the BMC’s power to prescribe regular lines of streets and take possession of land under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act when the land in question is private property forming part of a long-established industrial unit and is not an existing public street.
Also Read: Renewal of Lease = New Lease, Attracts Stamp Duty Bombay High Court
