Action Backed By Disaster Management Act Does Not Violate Article 300A Protection Against Deprivation Of Property: Bombay High Court
The Court held that Article 300A of the Constitution protects citizens from being deprived of property except by authority of law, but such protection is not violated where action is taken pursuant to statutory powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
The Bombay High Court has held that executive or administrative directions requiring a person to vacate property where the action is founded upon statutory powers conferred by legislation, such as the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the constitutional protection under Article 300A is not infringed.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, while dismissing a batch of writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Solapur Municipal Corporation for restoration and construction of stormwater drainage channels following severe flooding in the city, observed:
"Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. Thus, what is protected under Article 300A is that no one is to be deprived of his property except by authority of law, which clearly means that by executing executive orders [or administrative instructions] the government cannot ask anybody to vacate his property or demolish his building. But such actions are saved from being hit by Article 300A, which are backed by authority of law. The notice impugned in the petitions specifically makes out reference to the provisions of law i.e. the provisions of the DM Act."
Advocate Sarang S. Aradhye appeared for the petitioners, while AGPs T.J. Kapre, V.M. Mali, and S.B. Kalel appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The petitioners, owners of agricultural lands in Solapur, challenged notices issued by the Solapur Municipal Corporation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, directing them not to obstruct desilting and restoration of a natural drainage channel passing through their lands.
They contended that the proposed construction and restoration of the drain would affect portions of their private property and amounted to the acquisition of land without payment of compensation, in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Corporation opposed the petitions, contending that the notices were issued pursuant to statutory duties under the Disaster Management Act and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act after severe flooding in Solapur in September 2025. It asserted that the drainage channel historically existed but had been obstructed by the landowners, resulting in the blockage of the natural flow of stormwater.
Court's Observations
The Court first examined the statutory scheme of the Disaster Management Act and observed that the legislation had been enacted to provide an effective institutional framework for prevention, mitigation and management of disasters through coordinated governmental action.
The Bench referred to the statutory definitions of "disaster" and "disaster management" under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) and noted that the legislation specifically contemplates preventive measures, mitigation of risks and prompt response to threatening disaster situations.
The Court thereafter analysed the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act relating to drainage infrastructure. Referring to Sections 153, 155 and 157, it observed that the Municipal Commissioner has wide statutory powers to construct, maintain, repair, clean and restore municipal drains wherever necessary for effective drainage of the city.
The Bench observed: "A meaningful reading of Sections 153 to 157, as also 158 and onwards, would reveal a scheme of the Act. Sweeping powers are given to the Municipal Commissioner to lay drains, maintain them and clean them. If the notice impugned in the petition is perused, the Municipal Commissioner acting under the provisions of the DM Act has only intimated the petitioners not to cause any obstructions."
Considering the Disaster Management Act together with the Municipal Corporation Act, the Court held that the impugned notices were fully supported by statutory authority.
The Court observed: "If the Act, i.e., the DM Act and the MMC Act, and the provisions reproduced herein supra are to be given a meaningful interpretation in the backdrop of the intention of the legislature in enacting the said statutes, it would reveal that the said notice which is impugned in the petition is not foul of the said provisions."
Rejecting the principal constitutional challenge founded upon Article 300A, the Bench clarified that the constitutional guarantee only prohibits deprivation of property without authority of law and does not prohibit actions validly undertaken under statutory provisions.
The Court further held that the Disaster Management Act, read together with the Municipal Corporation Act, constituted the requisite source of statutory authority for the issuance of the notices.
The Bench observed: "We have already held above that, in our considered opinion, the DM Act read with the provisions of the MMC Act clearly spells out the source of power to the respondent-Corporation to issue such notice, the action being taken in the public interest. The contention of the petitioners that the action amounts to acquisition and therefore, the State cannot acquire the land without paying compensation also does not hold any water since the notice specifically contemplates that the action is being undertaken only in the backdrop of the torrential rains that occurred in Solapur in September 2025 and is in public interest."
The Court also accepted the Corporation's stand that a natural drainage channel had historically existed across the lands in question but had subsequently been diverted or blocked by the petitioners, thereby obstructing the natural flow of storm water.
It observed: "The action being initiated, as we have already observed, is after following the procedure under the DM Act."
The Bench further noted that Section 72 of the Disaster Management Act confers overriding effect upon the Act over inconsistent laws, reinforcing the statutory authority for the impugned action. Relying upon Union of India v. G.M. Kokil, the Court observed that the non obstante clause was intended to give overriding effect to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act wherever necessary.
Finally, the Court declined to adjudicate disputed questions of fact concerning the existence and obstruction of the natural drain in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Holding that the impugned notices were issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Disaster Management Act and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act for restoration of a natural drainage channel in public interest, the Bombay High Court found no merit in the challenge.
The Court observed that the dispute regarding the existence and obstruction of the drainage channel involved disputed questions of fact which could not appropriately be examined in writ proceedings. Consequently, it dismissed all the writ petitions.
Cause Title: Netaji Shekumbar Bhopale v. The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:4442-DB)
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocates Sarang S. Aradhye, Shantanu Gurav and Dnyaneshwari Utpat.
Respondents: Advocates Vishwanath Patil, Someshwar Wale; T.J. Kapre, AGP; V.M. Mali, AGP; and S.B. Kalel, AGP.