[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Laxmi Shekhar Kondar vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:17777
P2.AOST.10896.2026+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.10896 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.10899 OF 2026
Laxmi Shekhar Kondar Appellant/
.. Orig.Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Respondent/
.. Orig.Defendant
....................
Mr. Ashok Saraogi a/w. Mr. Niraj Yadav for Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocate for Respondent.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated
16.04.2026. Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Mr. Saraogi, learned Advocate for Appellant who is
original Plaintiff and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondent.
3. The impugned order is 13.04.2026 which rejects ad-interim
relief to Plaintiff. Apprehension is that in view of the substantive facts
in the present case, there is threat of demolition rather Plaintiff has
information that the demolition is slated for today.
4. Mr. Saraogi draws my attention to the impugned notice
dated 22.01.2026 appended at page No.99 which is addressed to
Petitioner. Her name is Laxmi Shekhar Kondar. House number shown
1 of 4
P2.AOST.10896.2026+.doc
in the notice is 67/D and it is alleged that there is unauthorised
construction of entire house. Reply thereto is filed by Plaintiff wherein
it is clarified by her that she is owner of house opposite to House
No.67/D. The Corporation arranged for hearing on 25.02.2026 before
Competent Authority. However Mr. Saraogi informs the Court that
such a hearing did not take place. The speaking order was passed by
Designated Officer on 10.03.2026, copy of which is appended at page
No.105. It is passed merely on the basis of response and reply given to
the show-cause notice issued by Corporation as stated in the said order
without giving opportunity of hearing and it merely states that Reply
submitted is not satisfactory to prove authorisation of the subject
structure.
5. It is specific case of Plaintiff that she is occupant of structure
No.65/C in the said area since long and appropriate documentary
evidence to that effect has been appended to present Appeal from
Order. With the able assistance of Mr. Saraogi, I have gone through
the same.
6. However there is no reason as to why present Appeal from
Order should be kept pending since present Appeal from Order is
challenging an ad-interim order. Rather I am of the opinion that no
purpose will be served keeping the Suit pending before Trial Court also
in facts and circumstances of the present case. Opportunity of hearing
2 of 4
P2.AOST.10896.2026+.doc
is clearly denied on the face of record since the speaking order passed
by Designated Officer itself states that it is passed on the basis of reply
which is filed and considered. Opportunity of hearing should be given
to a party to place on record documentary evidence, inter alia
pertaining to existence and subsistence of the structure and in the
present case when prima facie documents show the existence and
subsistence of the Suit structure since long which ought have been
considered by the Designated Officer. None of this is in fact
considered at all.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned order dated 13.04.2026 passed by learned Trial Court in the
suit proceedings stands quashed and set aside. Resultantly in so far as
the speaking order dated 10.03.2026 is concerned, the same also does
not stand the test of scrutiny in the aforesaid facts. It would be
appropriate if the speaking order dated 10.03.2026 is also quashed
and set aside and a remand is made. Hence the same is quashed and
set aside. Plaintiff is at liberty file appropriate additional Affidavit-in-
Reply within a period of four weeks from today before the Designated
Officer to the Statutory Notice and rely upon all material available to
her, after which a personal hearing shall be granted to Plaintiff and /
or her Pleader by the Designated Officer and after same is given, he
shall pass appropriate reasoned / speaking order within a period of
four weeks thereafter.
3 of 4
P2.AOST.10896.2026+.doc
8. In the meanwhile, until the fresh speaking order is passed
adhering to above directions, no coercive steps will be taken against
the Suit structure of Plaintiff which is the subject matter of show cause
notice dated 22.01.2026.
9. On the basis of this order the Plaintiff shall withdraw the
Suit before the learned Trial Court and Trial Court shall allow the
same.
10. In the event if the final speaking order passed by the
Competent Authority namely the Designated Officer is adverse to
Plaintiff, the same shall stand stayed for a period of two weeks
thereafter to enable the Plaintiff to take recourse to law.
11. All contentions of Plaintiff as well as the Corporation are
expressly kept open.
12. With the above directions, Appeal for Order is disposed. In
view of the disposal of Appeal from Order, pending Interim Application
is also disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.04.16
16:06:27
+0530
4 of 4
