{"id":58848,"date":"1996-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996"},"modified":"2017-01-15T01:42:16","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T20:12:16","slug":"municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (8)\t16<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT &amp; INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (8)\t16\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.B. MAJMUDAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     I\thave  gone  through  the  judgment  prepared  by  my<br \/>\nesteemed learned  Brother   K. Ramaswamy,  J. I respectfully<br \/>\nagree with  the conclusion  to the  effect that\t respondents<br \/>\nnos. 1\tand 2  had missed   the\t bus by adopting an indolent<br \/>\nattitude   in\tnot challenging\t the acquisition proceedings<br \/>\npromptly. Therefore,  the result is inevitable that the writ<br \/>\npetition is  liable to\tbe dismissed  on the ground of gross<br \/>\ndelay and laches.\n<\/p>\n<p>However, I  may mention at this stage that observations made<br \/>\nby my  learned brother\tK. Ramaswamy, J., In connection with<br \/>\nutilisation of\tland acquired under the Maharashtra Regional<br \/>\nTown Planning  Act (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;M.R.T.P.<br \/>\nAct&#8217;) for  one public  purpose to be used for another public<br \/>\npurpose, are  with great  respect not  found  by  me  to  be<br \/>\napposite. I, therefore, record my reasons for the said view.<\/p>\n<p>     Even  though   the\t proposal  under<br \/>\n     Section 126(1)  is for  acquisition<br \/>\n     of\t land  for  a  specified  public<br \/>\n     purpose, if  the planning authority<br \/>\n     wants   to\t   acquire   the    land<br \/>\n     subsequently for  any other  public<br \/>\n     purpose earmarked\tin the\tmodified<br \/>\n     scheme  as\t  has  happened\t in  the<br \/>\n     present  case   that  is\tif   the<br \/>\n     appellant\t Corporation  which  had<br \/>\n     initially proposed\t to acquire  the<br \/>\n     land  for\t extension  of\tsewerage<br \/>\n     treatment\t     plant\t  wanted<br \/>\n     subsequently  to  acquire the  same<br \/>\n     land   for\t its staff quarters then<br \/>\n     such a purpose must be specifically<br \/>\n     indicated\tin   the  plan\t meaning<br \/>\n     thereby that the land must be shown<br \/>\n     to\t be   reserved\tfor   the  staff<br \/>\n     quarters  of  the\tCorporation  and<br \/>\n     then the Special Planning Authority<br \/>\n     which had\tbecome\t the appropriate<br \/>\n     planning\t     authority,\t   i.e.,<br \/>\n     B.M.R.D.A. would  be   required  to<br \/>\n     issue  a\tfresh  proposal\t   under<br \/>\n     Section 126(1)   read  with Section<br \/>\n     40(3)(e)\tand Section  116 of  the<br \/>\n     M.R.T.P. Act  and follow  the gamut<br \/>\n     thereafter.   So long  as\tthat was<br \/>\n     not   done the\tearlier proposal<br \/>\n     under     Section\t126(1)\tand  the<br \/>\n     consequential   notification by the<br \/>\n     State  Government\t  under\t Section<br \/>\n     126(2)  which   had  lost\t   their<br \/>\n     efficacy could  not be revitalized.\n<\/p>\n<p>     I also   do not  subscribe\t  to the<br \/>\n     general  observation that a sitting<br \/>\n     tenant of\tthe land  which comes to<br \/>\n     be\t subjected   to\t     acquisition<br \/>\n     proceedings under\t Sections  4 and<br \/>\n     6\t of   the Land Acquisition  Act,<br \/>\n     in\t  no case can challenge the said<br \/>\n     acquisition     proceedings.     In<br \/>\n     appropriate   cases       such    a<br \/>\n     challenge can  be levelled\t  by the<br \/>\n     concerned tenant  having sufficient<br \/>\n     subsisting interest in the land. In<br \/>\n     my view,  therefore,   on\t  merits<br \/>\n     the learned   Single Judge as  well<br \/>\n     as the Division Bench  had\t rightly<br \/>\n     held     that    respondent&#8217;s  writ<br \/>\n     petition\thad    good   case    on<br \/>\n     merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>     However,\tas   the  learned Single<br \/>\n     Judge dismissed  the writ\tpetition<br \/>\n     on the  ground    of     delay  and<br \/>\n     laches and\t his view  was upset  by<br \/>\n     the Division  Bench which according<br \/>\n     to\t  me had  not taken correct view<br \/>\n     on\t  this\t score as  held\t  by  my<br \/>\n     learned brother  K. Ramaswamy,  j.,<br \/>\n     and with  which view I respectfully<br \/>\n     concur, I deem it fit  to record my<br \/>\n     additional reasons\t for non-suiting<br \/>\n     the respondent-petitioners\t on that<br \/>\n     score.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is   trite  to\tobserve\t that  before  the  planning<br \/>\nproposals  for\t Bandra-Kurla  Complex\twere  finalised\t and<br \/>\npublished by  the State of Maharashtra on 3rd May  1979, the<br \/>\nrequisite   statutory procedure\t of Section   40 sub-section<br \/>\n3(d), was necessarily followed by the  Special section 3(d),<br \/>\nwas  necessarily   followed  by\t  the  Special\t    Planning<br \/>\nAuthority and  that happened  between 7th March 1977 and 3rd<br \/>\nMay 1979.  To recapitulate  as per  Section 40\t sub-section<br \/>\n3(d)  of   the\tM.R.T.P.   Act\tbefore\tsubmitting  planning<br \/>\nproposals to the State Govt., the Special Planning Authority<br \/>\nhas to\tcarry out survey of the land and to prepare existing<br \/>\nland-use map  of the  area, and\t to prepare  and publish the<br \/>\ndraft proposal to the lands within its jurisdiction together<br \/>\nwith a\tnotice in  the Official Gazette and local newspapers<br \/>\nin  such  manner  as  the  Special  Planning  Authority\t may<br \/>\ndetermine. It  has also to invite objections and suggestions<br \/>\nfrom the  public within\t the period of not more than 30 days<br \/>\nfrom the  date of notice in the Official Gazette. Thus these<br \/>\nproposals are  to be  published not  only  in  the  Official<br \/>\nGazette but  in local  newspapers also.\t It  is,  therefore,<br \/>\nobvious that  the proposals for changing the reservations of<br \/>\nthe concerned  lands in\t the area and shifting of the sewage<br \/>\nplant from  Block &#8216;H&#8217;  to Block &#8216;A&#8217; in the planning proposal<br \/>\nfor Bandra-Kurla  Complex  were\t published  by\tthe  Special<br \/>\nPlanning Authority  prior to  3rd May  1979  and  after\t 7th<br \/>\nMarch, 1977  when that\tauthority was constituted. When such<br \/>\nproposals got  published in  local newspapers it is too much<br \/>\nfor the\t respondent-writ petitioners  to  submit  that\tthey<br \/>\nnever knew about these proposals and they came to know about<br \/>\nthese proposals only on 26th May 1983 when public notice was<br \/>\nissued in  Times of  India regarding  the approval  of these<br \/>\nproposals  by\tthe  State  Govt,  Even\t assuming  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.1  and 2\t might have  not read the Government<br \/>\nGazette at  least   notices issued in local newspapers would<br \/>\nnot  have   escaped  their   attention\tin  1979.  By  1979,<br \/>\ntherefore, Respondents\tnos,1 and  2 must have known or with<br \/>\ndue diligence  would have knows that there was a proposal to<br \/>\nde-reserve  their   land  from\t the  earmarked\t purpose  of<br \/>\nextension  of\tsewerage  treatment   plant   of   Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation.  They  may\t not  object  to  such\ta  favorable<br \/>\nproposal but  obviously they  should be\t inquisite enough to<br \/>\nknow as\t early as  between 1977\t and 1979  that the could on<br \/>\ntheir land  was getting\t lifted. Therefore,  they would have<br \/>\nbeen put to the enquiry as to what happened to this proposal<br \/>\nand what was the final outcome thereof. Instead of bothering<br \/>\nanyway about  it, they just slumbered on and supported their<br \/>\nclaims for  compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer<br \/>\nunder Section  9 of  the Act,  joined issues thereon in 1979<br \/>\nand onwards  and allowed the award to be rendered as late on<br \/>\n24th February  1983. Not  only that  they also\tallowed\t the<br \/>\npossession to  be taken by the Corporation on 4th March 1983<br \/>\nthough of  course it  was symbolic  possession as  they were<br \/>\ntenants in  possession. To  add to this indolent conduct and<br \/>\nconnivance on  the part\t of the respondent-writ petitioners,<br \/>\nin these  very acquisition proceedings, they filed reference<br \/>\napplication under  Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on<br \/>\n7th April  1983 claiming  additional compensation. Thus upto<br \/>\n7th April  1983 they  had no  objection to  their  land\t had<br \/>\nalready got  de-reserved for  the extension  of\t the  sewage<br \/>\nplant  from   being  acquired\tand  they   concentrated  on<br \/>\ncompensation only.  It is  their own  case that even on 10th<br \/>\nJanuary 1986  there was\t a meeting  of the  Bombay Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation Works  Committee and in that meeting the members<br \/>\npresent had  asked the\tDy. Municipal  Corporation  to\tmake<br \/>\nstatement on  certain queries  raised by  him and one of the<br \/>\nqueries was  about absence of proposals to have extension of<br \/>\nSewage Purification  Plant, Dharavi.  This also\t shows\tthat<br \/>\nRespondent Nos.\t 1 and\t2 were\tfully alive to the fact that<br \/>\nthere was  no scope for extension of Dharavi Sewage Plant on<br \/>\ntheir land.  Despite all these facts within the knowledge of<br \/>\nthe respondent\tnos. 1 &amp; 2 they set on the fence and allowed<br \/>\nthe acquisition\t proceedings to\t continue  and\treach  their<br \/>\nterminus and  even after award was passed and possession was<br \/>\ntaken by the Municipal Corporation, they staked their claims<br \/>\nonly for additional compensation. It is only thereafter that<br \/>\nthey filed  writ petition  on 14th July 1983. Such a belated<br \/>\nwrit  petition,\t therefore,  was  rightly  rejected  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned single\tJudge on  the  ground  of  gross  delay\t and<br \/>\nlaches. The  respondent-writ petitioners can be said to have<br \/>\nwaived their  objections to the acquisition on the ground of<br \/>\nextinction of public purpose by their own inaction, lethargy<br \/>\nand indolent  conduct. The  division bench of the High Court<br \/>\nhad taken  the view that because of their inaction no vested<br \/>\nrights\tof  third  parties  are\t created.  That\t finding  is<br \/>\nobviously incorrect  for the  simple reason  that because of<br \/>\nthe indolent  conduct  of  the\twrit  petitioners  land\t got<br \/>\nacquired, award\t was passed, compensation was handed over to<br \/>\nvarious\t claimants   including\t the   landlord.   Reference<br \/>\napplications came  to be  filed for  larger compensation  by<br \/>\nclaimants  including   writ  petitioners   themselves.\t The<br \/>\nacquired  land\tgot  vested  in\t the  State  Govt,  and\t the<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation free from all encumbrances as enjoined<br \/>\nby Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus right to get<br \/>\nmore compensation got vested in diverse claimants by passing<br \/>\nof the\taward, as well as vested right was created in favour<br \/>\nof the Bombay Municipal Corporation by virtue of the vesting<br \/>\nof the land in the State Government for being handed over to<br \/>\nthe Corporation.  All these  events could not be wished away<br \/>\nby observing  that no  third party  rights were\t created  by<br \/>\nthem. The  writ petition  came to  be filed  after all these<br \/>\nevents had  taken place.  Such a  writ petition\t was clearly<br \/>\nstill borne  due to  gross delay  and laches.  I, therefore,<br \/>\nrespectfully agree  with the  conclusion to which my learned<br \/>\nbrother Ramaswamy,  J. has  reached that  on the  ground  of<br \/>\ndelay and  laches  the\twrit  petition\tis  required  to  be<br \/>\ndismissed and the appeal has to be allowed on that ground.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (8) 16 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT &amp; INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/09\/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development &amp; ... on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development &amp; ... on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-14T20:12:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T20:12:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1524,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development &amp; ... on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-14T20:12:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development &amp; ... on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development &amp; ... on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-14T20:12:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T20:12:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996"},"wordCount":1524,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996","name":"Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs The Industrial Development &amp; ... on 6 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-14T20:12:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-greater-vs-the-industrial-development-on-6-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Corporation Of Greater &#8230; vs The Industrial Development &amp; &#8230; on 6 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}