Statutory power for flood mitigation under Disaster Management Act overrides private property rights under Article 300A.

The Petitioners, owners of agricultural lands in Majarewadi, Solapur, challenged notices issued by the Solapur Municipal Corporation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 ("DM Act").

The notices informed the Petitioners that the Corporation intended to undertake desilting and construction of permanent drains (Nalas) through their land to facilitate natural rainwater flow and prevent flooding.

The Petitioners contended the land is private property, no waterlogging issues exist, and the action amounts to unlawful dispossession without compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

The Corporation argued that natural drainage paths historically existed on these lands but were illegally filled or diverted by the owners, leading to severe floods in September 2025.

1. Whether the Municipal Corporation has the legal authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, to construct or restore drains on private land without formal land acquisition.

2. Whether the impugned notices violate the Petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The court applied Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, defining "disaster" and "disaster management" to include mitigation and prevention of danger.

Sections 26 and 30 grant District Authorities exhaustive powers for disaster response.

Under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, Section 153 mandates the Commissioner to maintain and construct drains, while Section 155 specifically empowers the Commissioner to carry drains through "any land whatsoever" after giving reasonable notice.

The court also applied Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects against deprivation of property except by "authority of law", and Section 72 of the DM Act, which provides an overriding effect over other laws.

The Court reasoned that the Corporation's actions were not "acquisition" for ownership but a "statutory drainage management and flood mitigation measure" performed in the public interest.

By correlating topographical surveys from 1978 and 2001 with current site conditions, the Court found that the proposed work follows historically existing natural drainage paths.

The Court held that the "authority of law" required by Article 300A is satisfied by the combined reading of the DM Act and Sections 153-155 of the MMC Act, which grant the Commissioner sweeping powers to lay and clean drains on private land to prevent catastrophes like the 2025 floods.

Furthermore, the non-obstante clause in Section 72 of the DM Act validates the Corporation’s prompt administrative response over contrary claims of private property interference.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that the Corporation acted within its statutory jurisdiction and permitted the Corporation to proceed with the drainage works in the interest of public safety.

It further held that disputed factual questions regarding whether the drains were natural or man-made cannot be entertained in Writ Jurisdiction.