Bombay High Court

Kalawant Shantaram Bhopi vs Chandrakant Anant Vedak And Ors on 7 May, 2025

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2025:BHC-AS:21585
                                                                        29-WP12369-2024.DOC

                                                                                           Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 12369 OF 2024

                      Kalawant Shantaram Bhopi                                ...Petitioner
                                         Versus
                      1. Chandrakant Anant Vedak
SANTOSH               2. Vandana Ashok Singh
SUBHASH
KULKARNI              3. Rahul Shankar Pawar
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
                      4. Akshay Vilas Chaudhari
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.05.09
18:03:16 +0530
                      5. Hareshwar Shantaram Gharat
                      6. Prashant Maruti Kadam
                      7. Bhaskar Ramji Ganekar
                      8. Maruti Laxman Dabhrkak
                      9. Rekha Suresh Rithe
                      10. Shel Ajinkya Ramesh Lepkar
                      11. Manoj Madhukar Ubhare
                      12. Prabhakar Madhukar Nakti
                      13. Anant Ramchandra Bhayde
                      14. Kalpesh Bhagoji Teigure
                      15. Amol Pandit Patil
                      16. Madhukar Janardan Biradi
                      17. Priyanka Dilip Mhatre
                      18. Vaibhav Vilas Pawar
                      19. Dinesh Rama Bhayde
                      20. Abhay Chandrakant Ambekar
                      21. Pradeep Tukaram Mhaskar
                      22. Prashant Vilas Dawle
                      23. Pramanand Maniram Wasnik
                      24. Srikrishna Dattaram Sagawkari
                      25. Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
                      26. The Controller of Unauthorized
                          Construction (CIDCO)                           ...Respondents


                      Adv. Prabha Badadare, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar, for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 6
                            to 14, 18 to 20, 22 to 24.
                      Mr. D. A. Athavale, for Respondent No.26 - CIDCO.
                      Mr. Tejas Dande, for Respondent No.25.


                                                        1/8



                       ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2025              ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 09:57:03 :::
                                                                29-WP12369-2024.DOC

                                            CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                            DATED: 7h MAY, 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 23 rd

February, 2024, whereby an application (Exhibit-20) preferred

by the petitioner to implead him as a party defendant to the

suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.183 of 2023, came to be

rejected.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 24 instituted the suit seeking a

declaration that the notices dated 14 th March, 2025 and 17th

March, 2023 issued by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation -

respondent No.25 are bad in law, illegal, void and inoperative

and for the consequential relief of injunction to restrain

respondent No.25 and its officers and servants from

demolishing or pulling down or removing the suit structures,

without following due process of law.

4. In the said suit, the petitioner preferred an application to

implead himself as a party defendant to the suit asserting that

the alleged illegal structures have been erected on the common

29-WP12369-2024.DOC

areas and any order that may be passed in the said suit may

adversely affect the proprietary rights of the petitioner.

5. The application was resisted.

6. By the impugned order the learned Civil Judge was

persuaded to reject the application observing inter alia that the

suit was instituted primarily for declaration and injunction qua

the notices issued by respondent No.25 and questions of legal

right or title of the parties to the subject structures do not arise

for determination. Therefore, it was not necessary to implead

the petitioner as a party defendant to the suit.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in

fact, the Municipal Corporation had issued the notices to

respondent Nos.1 to 24 on the basis of the complaints of

unauthorized development made by the petitioner. The suit

notice, the legality and validity of which has been assailed,

referred to the said complaint addressed by the petitioner. Any

order that may be passed in the said suit will have a direct

bearing on the proprietary rights, asserted by the petitioner.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a

necessary party to the suit.

29-WP12369-2024.DOC

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co.

vs. Lalji Mavji and others1, and a Division Bench judgment of

this Court in the case of Ashok Babulal Avasthi vs. Munna

Nizamuddin Khan and anr.2.

9. Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned Counsel for respondent

Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 to 14, 18 to 20, 22 to 24, resisted the submissions

on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted that the trial court

has correctly exercised the discretion not to implead the

petitioner as a party defendant to the suit. Mr. Dhakephalkar

further submitted that respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 to 14, 18 to 20,

22 to 24 are disputing the claim of title of the petitioner to the

subject property. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be added as a

necessary or proper party.

10. I have perused the material on record and the impugned

order. The material on record indicates that the petitioner had

made grievances with the authorities that unauthorized

development is being carried out over the subject property. The

petitioner claims a right over the area of the land over which

structures have been erected. It appears that, respondent No.25,

on the basis of the said complaints, issued notice to respondent 1 (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 379.

2 2024(1) ALL MR 50.

29-WP12369-2024.DOC

Nos.1 to 24 under Section 54(1) of the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act"). Undoubtedly, in the

suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 to 24 for declaration

regarding the legality and validity of the suit notices, the

question of title may not directly arise for determination.

However, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no direct

interest in the subject matter of the suit.

11. A useful reference, in this context, can be made to a

decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Dharma

Bhonu vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Dandekar and antoher 3,

wherein in an identical fact-situation, where the petitioner had

made grievances to the Municipal Corporation regarding the

unauthorised development and on the strength of the said

complaint, the Municipal Corporation had issued notices under

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, this Court held that

having regard to the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"), it cannot be said that the

application for impleadment that was moved on behalf of the

petitioner was misconceived. The petitioner is directly and

substantially concerned with and affected by the proceedings

before the City Civil Court for more than one reason. The action

3 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 152.

29-WP12369-2024.DOC

of carrying out an allegedly unauthorized construction and the

alleged encroachment by the first respondent directly affect the

rights of the petitioner. Secondly, it was at the behest of the

petitioner and, in view of the proceedings instituted before the

High Court, that the Municipal Corporation has almost

grudgingly resorted to its statutory powers under the Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. This Court was thus

persuaded to allow the chamber summons for impleadment of

the petitioner therein as a party defendant to the suit.

12. The aforesaid decision is on all four with the facts of the

case at hand. In the instant case as well, the petitioner had filed

writ petition being WP/8346/2021 seeking action against the

alleged illegal and unauthorized construction by respondent

Nos.9 to 16 therein. Thereupon, this Court directed respondent

Nos.2 and 5 to 7, therein, CIDCO and its authorities to take

appropriate steps against the illegal and unauthorized

construction. Pursuant to the said order, it appears notices have

been issued.

13. Even otherwise, when the petitioner claims that he has

ownership rights over the subject premises, the principles

enunciated in the cases of Momonji (supra) and Ashok Avasthi

(supra) come into play. In the case of Ashok Avasthi (supra) the

29-WP12369-2024.DOC

Division Bench has, in terms, observed that this Court has

consistently exercised its discretion for the last five decades to

allow such a joinder of the owner of the premises where notices

have been issued under the municipal legislation. This exercise

of discretion has become a well-established practice. In the

instant case, as the petitioner asserts ownership over a portion

of the suit premises and the petitioner had filed writ petition

before this Court and also made the complaints with the

authorities about the alleged unauthorised and illegal

development, the petitioner, in the least, appears a proper party.

Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

14. Hence, the following order:

:ORDER:

(i)     The petition stands allowed.

(ii)    The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

(iii) The application for impleadment (Exhibit-20) stands

allowed.

(iv) The plaintiff shall carry out the necessary amendment in

the plaint so as to implead the petitioner as a party

defendant to the suit within a period of six weeks from the

date of uploading of this order and serve the summons on

29-WP12369-2024.DOC

the petitioner - newly impleaded defendant within a period

of one month thereafter.