9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the drain (nallah) owned by the State Government vests in the Corporation. 2. Whether the Corporation is entitled to levy and recover sewerage charges from the respondents. 3. Whether the Corporation can levy sewerage charges under Section 231 of the Act without issuing the required notice. Summary: Issue 1: Vesting of Drain in the Corporation The primary issue was whether the drain (nallah) owned by the State Government, where the respondents discharge their effluents, vests in the Corporation. The Court analyzed the term "vest" as used in Section 220 and Section 220A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. It was concluded that the word "vest" could mean vesting in title, possession, or in a limited sense, depending on the context. The Court held that merely because the Corporation is entrusted with the duty to maintain water channels and drains, it does not mean that the water channels and drains belonging to the Government vest in it. Vesting can only occur in the manner provided u/s 220A of the Act. Since the State Government had not transferred its right in the drain to the Corporation as required u/s 220A, the drain did not vest in the Corporation. Issue 2: Entitlement to Levy Sewerage Charges The Corporation argued that since it is responsible for maintaining drains and sewers within its limits, it is entitled to levy sewerage charges. However, the Court found that the drain in question did not vest in the Corporation, and therefore, the Corporation was not entitled to levy or realize any sewerage charges from the respondents. The Court noted that if the State Government were to transfer the drains to the Corporation as contemplated u/s 220A, the Corporation would then be entitled to levy and realize sewerage charges. Issue 3: Levy of Sewerage Charges u/s 231 Without Notice The Corporation contended that it could levy sewerage charges u/s 231 of the Act because an underground sewer passes within 100 feet of the respondents' land. The High Court had held that no notice as required u/s 231 was given to the respondents, and thus, the Corporation could not levy and recover sewerage charges. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that justification for levy during correspondence cannot substitute the notice required u/s 231. In the absence of such notice, the Corporation could not demand sewerage charges. However, the Court noted that it would be open to the Corporation to proceed u/s 231 against the respondents in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000, to be equally received by both respondents. The Corporation was not entitled to levy or recover sewerage charges from the respondents as the drain did not vest in it, and no proper notice u/s 231 was issued.
|
