Logo
2025(6)CPMH71
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Hon'ble A S Gadkari ; Kamal Khata, J.)
Writ Petition No. 5337 of 2024 dated 20/06/2025
Surendra Shah

... Appellant

Versus
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation; Executive Engineer; Assistant Engineer; Arvind Badriprasad Yadav; Madhumati Arvind Yadav; Rameshchandra Arvind Yadv; Kamlesh Arvind Yadav; Awdhesh Arvind Yadav

... Respondent

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11 - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 354A, Sec. 351, Sec. 515A - Illegal Construction Demolition - Petitioner being owner of land filed writ petition seeking demolition of illegal structures constructed without approval - BMC issued speaking order declaring structures illegal and directed removal - Respondent initiated civil suit challenging notices but no interim relief granted - Court referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing strict approach against unauthorized constructions and non-encouragement of violations - Observed that no sanctioned plan existed for impugned structures - Held that illegalities are incurable and not entitled to judicial protection - Directed BMC to proceed with demolition - Petition Allowed

Law Point : Unauthorized constructions lacking sanctioned approvals cannot be protected under law and must be removed irrespective of civil claims or suits filed without interim protection.

Acts Referred :
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 7R. 11
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sec. 354A, Sec. 351, Sec. 515A

Counsel :
Naushad Engineer (Senior Advocate), Pooja Kane, Yogesh Adhia, Chaitanya Chavan, Rupali Adhate, Rupali Patil, Komal Punjabi, Vishal Kanade, Ramakant Yadav

JUDGEMENT

Kamal Khata, J.

[1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and disposed off finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the respective parties.

[2] By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, being the owner of the writ land, seeks a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 namely, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ("BMC") and its Officers to immediately proceed with the demolition of all illegal constructions on the 'writ land'. The writ land is described as Land No. 13, Survey No. 156 (part), Hissa No. 6 (part), corresponding to CTS No. 27, admeasuring 921 square yards or 771.60 square meters, situated at Village Pahadi, Haji Bapu Road, Malad (East), Mumbai 400097.

[3] We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

[4] The BMC, through Mr. Sagar Rane, Executive Engineer, B & F Department, P/North Ward, has filed an Affidavit dated 2nd May 2025. The affidavit states that on 18th March 2025, the BMC issued a Speaking Order declaring the said structure illegal and directing its removal within 15 days. It also discloses that, Respondent No.4 filed a suit bearing L.C. Suit No.1590 of 2016 before the City Civil Court, Dindoshi where the BMC sought dismissal of the Suit on the ground that it challenges Notices issued under Sections 351 and 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("BMC Act") and is barred by Section 515A of the BMC Act. The BMC has further filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), challenging the maintainability of the Suit as barred by Section 515A of the BMC Act. No interim relief has been granted in the Suit.

[5] In recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatia & Anr. vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.,2024 SCCOnLineSC 3767 and in the case of Kaniz Ahmed vs. Sabuddin & Ors, 2025 INSC 610, the Supreme Court has clearly directed that as follows:

a) the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval cannot be encouraged.

b) if any violation is brought to the Notice of the Courts, it must be curtailed with iron hands and any leniency afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy.

c) that laxity on the part of the Authorities concerned in performing their obligations under the Act cannot be used as a shield to defend action against the illegal/unauthorized constructions.

d) the High Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with the cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent Authority.

e) there is a need for maintaining a firm stance that emanates not only from the inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force to facilitate the well-being of all concerned.

f) the law ought not to come to the rescue of those who flout its rigors as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity.

[6] We are bound by the observations of the Supreme Court and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two Judgments. We see no reason to protect the illegalities.

[7] With a view to grant an opportunity, we inquired with the learned counsel Mr. Vishal Kanade, appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 8, to show any sanctioned plan permitting them to construct the writ structures. He very fairly conceded that, there were none.

[8] Accordingly, we have no basis to protect these structures which are illegal. Illegalities are incurable as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ramdas Shenoy vs. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi & Ors., 1974 2 SCC 506.

[9] Considering the above, the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

9.1) The BMC is directed to demolish the said illegal structures on the writ land, as soon as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of of uploading of this Judgment on the Official website of High Court, Bombay

---------------