[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sudhir Sambhaji Jadhav vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 5 January, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:28
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 333 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13488 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8599 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 333 OF 2025
Anita Ashok Mapuskar .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater of Mumbai &
Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 334 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 37307 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8601 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 334 OF 2025
Amol Pandharinath Vedak .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater of Mumbai &
Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 335 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13489 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8603 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 335 OF 2025
Manik Gajanan Thakur .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater of Mumbai &
Anr. .. Respondents
1 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:35:53 :::
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 336 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13490 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8604 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 336 OF 2025
Rajkumar Gamandas Ramchandani .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater of Mumbai &
Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 337 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13491 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8607 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 337 OF 2025
Pushpalata Pandurang Ale .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater of Mumbai &
Anr. .. Respondents
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 338 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13492 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8610 OF 2025
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 338 OF 2025
Sudhir Sambhaji Jadhav .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater of Mumbai &
Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Amit Ashok Gharte, Advocate for Appellants / Applicants.
Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocate i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for the BMC.
...................
2 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:35:53 :::
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 15, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 05, 2026.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Gharte, learned Advocate for Appellants /
Applicants and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondents - BMC.
2. This is a group of six cases namely Appeals From Order
which are challenging separate identical orders all dated 19.05.2025
passed by the Trial Court. They are ad-interim orders passed in Notice
of Motion filed by Plaintiffs / Appellants before the Trial Court on
consideration of the case made out by Plaintiffs in the Suit plaint.
3. Plaintiffs have challenged legality of statutory notices issued
under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (for short 'MRTP Act') by the Corporation qua their structures.
Identical notices have been issued which are all dated 15.03.2025,
copies of which are appended at Exhibit 'U' to the Appeal From Order.
The impugned notices are issued under Section 53(1) read with
Section 52(1)(h) and (d) of the MRTP Act. The notices have been
replied to by all Plaintiffs on 27.03.2025 separately. Pursuant to this
Designated Officer of the Corporation has passed a speaking order
dated 29.04.2025. The speaking order is appended at Exhibit 'W' -
page No.171 to the Appeal From Order in Appeal From Order No.333
of 2025. Prima facie, perusal of the speaking order reveals that without
3 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
hearing the Plaintiffs, the speaking order has been passed by the
Designated Officer, Ward 'T' of the Corporation. It is also seen that the
reply given by Plaintiffs to the impugned notice has not even been
considered by the Designated Officer since the speaking order is prima
facie sans without reasons.
4. Be that as it may, Plaintiffs being aggrieved have filed the
Suit proceedings on the premise that the impugned action initiated by
the Corporation is at the behest of the landlord of the suit property
who is a Developer. Common identical grounds have been pleaded by
Plaintiffs in all Suit proceedings, inter alia, stating that the notice
structures have been in existence since prior to 1962 and Plaintiffs
and/or their predecessors-in-title have been in possession and
occupation of the notice structures since then. The notice structures in
all six cases are residential rooms ad-measuring between 100 square
feet to 200 square feet as belonging to and in occupation of Plaintiffs
and their families situated in Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl built by the
Mhatre family, the erstwhile landlord of the said property prior to
2013.
5. After hearing Plaintiffs and perusing the record, on
01.12.2025 the following order was passed and the matters were
posted for hearing to 15.12.2025 after directing the Municipal
Corporation to file its Affidavit-in-Reply to the case of Plaintiffs made
4 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
out in the Appeal From Order and Interim Application. For reference
and convenience, the order dated 01.12.2025 is reproduced below:-
"1. I have heard Mr. Gharte, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for
the BMC.
2. I have considered the facts of the present five Appeal
from Orders before me. One of the Appeal from Order is not
listed on board today that Appeal from Order is Appeal from
Order No. 334 of 2025. The Appellant is Amol Pandrinath
Vedak therein. It is taken on record and heard today. All six
Appeal from Orders are on the same footing.
3. It is seen that the Appellants are plaintiffs before the Trial
Court and are aggrieved with the ad-interim order dated
19/05/2025 which is prima facie identically passed in all the six
suits. Hence, they have approached this Court. The appellants
were protected by ad-interim relief granted by this Court which
was extended from time to time thereafter. Today, Mr. Gharte
has taken me through the record of the case. Since all six Appeal
from Orders are identical, the facts in one of the Appeal from
Order namely the lead Appeal from Order i.e. Appeal from
Order No. 333 of 2025, filed by Anita Ashok Mapuskar are
referred to for the sake of reference and convenience. Every
document rather all documents referred to and relied upon by
the plaintiffs - appellants in support of their case are identical.
The impugned action of the Corporation begins with issues of
issuance of notice under Section 53 (1A) which is dated
15/03/2025 in all six cases. Issuance of such a notice prima
facie envisages that structures of the appellants are
unauthorised and what at all the Corporation seeks are
sanctioned plan for the said structures.
4. The designated officer of the Corporation has heard the
plaintiffs and passed the impugned order dated 29/04/2025 in
all six cases rejecting the case of Appellants-Plaintiffs. To
challenge the said order, the plaintiffs have rushed to the Court.
The Court is the last -bastion of the aggrieved parties when
there is no other option available to them in law when parties
fear that the roof over their head is taken away. By virtue of the
impugned order, which is an ad-interim order protection has
been refused to the plaintiffs/appellants on 19/05/2025.
5. It is seen from the record that the six appellants before
me are residents of one Rakhmabai Chawl situated at
Mithanagar, Mulund (East), Mumbai in respect of independent
and separate rooms having dimensions upto 200 sq. ft. in
respect of all six appellants. When the impugned notice under
Section 53-A was received and hearing was granted to
appellants, they referred to and relied upon substantial
documents rather documentary evidence to show existence of
5 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
their structures since long. All six appellants referred to and
relied upon issuance of ration cards to them to show their
existence and address of the suit structures as far as back in the
year 1987, copies of which are appended at 'Exhibit-E'. They
relied upon property tax bills and having transferred the
property tax assessment on to their names as far as back in the
year 1988-1989 (Exhibit----). They relied upon rebate given to
them in respect of property tax assessment by the Assessment
Collector vide letter dated 27/10/2003 appended at 'Exhibit---'.
They placed on record the water bills in respect of water
collection supplied to the suit property i.e. their rooms and
Rakhmabai Chawl dating back to 1996 as also in the case of at
least two out of the six appellants before me relating to transfer
to assessment tax bills in the year 1993. All six appellants have
referred to and relied upon electricity bills issued by the then
MSEB (Electricity Provider) in the year 1987 and most
importantly their names being on the electoral roll published by
the Election Commission of India in the year 1983-1985
showing their address of the suit structures. In each of the
appellants' case before me, I have found that the appellants'
structures have been in existence since long duly verified by
documentary evidence on record. Some appellants may be
subsequent purchasers of their said structures but the entire
chain of agreements of transfer of the Rooms/structures have
been placed on record. Though it can be argued by the
Corporation that they are not registered documents but what
needs to be ascertained in the present case is the fact that the
appellants have transacted and transmitted independent rooms
admeasuring between 100 sq. ft and 200 sq. ft in the said
Rakhmabai Chawl. Pursuant to the title and interest in the said
rooms having been transferred from the original owner i.e. the
Mhatre Family. Rakhmabai Mhatre happened to be the
matriarch of the Mhatre Family under whose name the said
Chawl was nomenclatured sometime in the year 1955-1956.
6. Prima facie there is material available on record to show
the existence of the structures/rooms from 1958-1959 onwards
when the Chawl was built. The existence of the Appellants is
confirmed as long standing tenants of Rakhmabai Chawl in the
deed of conveyance entered into by the present landlord/ owner
of the land on which the said structures/rooms are standing.
Names of all 51 tenants whose tenancy is attorned to the new
landlord are recorded in the Registered Conveyance of 2013.
That registered deed of conveyance is appended at page No. 110
and list of tenants is appended at page No. 133 wherein prima
facie it is seen that all six appellants before me or in the case of
two of the appellants their predecessor-in-title have been
attorned as tenants and occupants in respect of their respective
rooms/structures. The singular ground for rejection of the
appellants case by the designated officer is that the appellants
have failed to produce any documentary evidence prior to the
datum line. Such a ground in respect of the structures of the
appellants which are admittedly residential occupation could
6 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
never have been passed when initiation of action by the
corporation under Section 53 (1A) of the MRTP Act, which
alleges that the structures are unauthorised. Rather it is not
permissible for the designated officer to take such a stand for
rejecting the case of the appellants structures which are
residential user. The issue of datum line would be applicable to
existence of commercial structures. There is overwhelming
evidence which is mentioned hereinabove which prima facie
shows existence of Rakhmabai Chawl (बै ठी चाळ) since 1959-
1960 and this is further confirmed and fortified by the fact that
the 7x12 revenue extract appended at page No. 59 prima facie
shows the holder of the structures to be four members of the
Mhatre family. The documents which are referred to
hereinabove qua Appeal from Order No. 333 of 2025 also
incidentally find mention qua the appellants/plaintiffs in the
remaining five Appeal from Orders also and I have perused the
same. When all requisite details existence of the structures of
the appellants/plaintiffs have been placed on record, the
impugned order has not even considered it prima facie and has
rejected ad-interim relief.
7. Today, at the request of Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for
the Corporation, I am giving him time for two weeks to file
affidavit-in- reply to justify the stand of the Corporation.
8. Since in view of the aforesaid prima facie strong facts, the
Corporation is directed not to take any coercive steps
whatsoever against the structures of the plaintiffs - appellants
before me until the present Appeal from Orders are decided by
this Court. Affidavit in reply in all six Appeal from Orders is
permitted to be filed within two weeks from today and same
shall be considered on the next date and appropriate further
order shall be passed for disposal of the present Appeal from
Orders in accordance with law.
9. It is clarified that if the Corporation does not file
affidavit-in- reply, this Court shall not await their reply and
decide the Appeal from Orders on their own merits and in
accordance with law.
10. List all six A.O.'s on 15th December 2025."
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Municipal Corporation has
filed its Affidavit-in-Reply dated 15.12.2025 rather separate Affidavits-
in-Reply in all 6 Interim Applications of the Appeal From Orders. They
are served in advance on the Advocate for Appellants / Plaintiffs.
Physical copies of the same are tendered before the Court on
7 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
15.12.2025 and the Appeal From Orders and Interim Applications have
been heard finally by consent of both the parties today. Both the
learned Advocates for the parties have taken me through the record of
the cases and made their submissions at length. Submissions made by
the learned Advocates have received due consideration of the Court.
7. It is prima facie seen that the impugned order dated
15.03.2025 issued by the Corporation proceeds on the premise that
Appellants / Plaintiffs have commenced, undertaken and carried out
development or instituted or changed the use of their land / premises
as described in the Schedule therein not in accordance with the
permission granted or in contravention of any condition subject to
which such permission was granted or in contravention of the
permission which was duly modified. It is seen that the Show-Cause-
Notice is a typed format of the notice without any specific case made
out. In so far as the Schedule appended to the impugned notice is
concerned, all that it states is the description of the suit structure
namely suit structure rooms occupied by Plaintiffs and nothing more
which prima facie alleges that the entire suit structure has been
unauthorizedly constructed by Plaintiffs. However, the impugned
notices call upon Plaintiffs to reinstate / restore / remove the
unauthorized development / changes in the respective rooms of which
Plaintiffs are in occupation of and referred to on the basis of
permission granted / sanctioned plan dated 20.09.1969 and calls upon
8 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
Plaintiffs to apply to the Competent Authority i.e. Executive Engineer
(Building Proposal) Department of the Corporation for retention of the
unauthorized work within one month from the date of issuance of
receipt of the statutory notice.
8. Prima facie on the face of record the impugned notice
appears to be completely incongruous because on the one hand it
alleges unauthorized development and calls upon the Plaintiffs to
resurrect and correct the same by applying for regularization whereas
on the other hand it alleges that Plaintiffs have carried out
unauthorized construction without even specifying the nature and
description of the unauthorized development whatsoever. Prima facie
on the face of record the impugned notice is as vague as it can be and
thoroughly insufficient on the face of record.
9. It is seen that Plaintiffs have adequately replied to the said
notice on 27.03.2025, copies of which are all appended to the Appeal
From Orders and the Suit Plaint. What is intriguing is the fact that
before the impugned notice is issued, Municipal Corporation has not
followed the due process of law whatsoever neither any notice has
been given to Plaintiffs for carrying out any survey or inspection of the
alleged suit structure about which there is an allegation impugned in
the statutory notice. It is Plaintiffs' case that there was no unauthorized
or illegal construction carried out in their respective rooms which are
9 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
long standing and nomenclatured with room numbers in the structure
called Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl, Mhatre Nagar, Mithagar Road,
Mulund (East), Mumbai 400 081.
10. It is also stated by Plaintiffs that similar impugned action was
initiated in the past in the year 2016 at the instance of the present
landlord who had bought the larger property unsuccessfully which is
borne out from the record. Plaintiffs have referred to the notice issued
by the Corporation's under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 (for short 'MMC Act') issued to them in the year
2016 which had alleged that the Suit structure i.e. rooms in which
Plaintiffs are residing are dilapidated structures at that time. The
impugned notice and impugned speaking order passed by the
Designated Officer which are under challenge prima facie proceed on
the basis of Plaintiffs having carried out unauthorized construction.
11. It is seen that Plaintiffs have referred to and relied upon
substantial documentary evidence which is prima facie considered
while passing the order dated 01.12.2025. It is seen that in the year
2013 the entire larger premises / property on which the Suit structures
are standing was transferred and conveyed to the present landlord by
registered Sale Deed, copy of which is appended to the Appeal From
Order at page No.110. The sale and transfer of the larger suit premises
has taken place from its erstwhile owners / vendors namely the Mhatre
10 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
Family who had originally constructed the Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl
wherein the rooms occupied by Plaintiffs are situated. By virtue of the
registered Deed of Conveyance dated 15.03.2013, 7 members of the
Mhatre Family conveyed the entire larger property to M/s. Indu
Enterprise (present owner), a Partnership firm through its Partner Mr.
Anish Balkrishna Joshi and Mr. Mandar Dattatraya Vaidya, who are the
purchasers. Perusal of the said Deed of Conveyance prima facie shows
that the said Mhatre Family who are the Vendors were in occupation of
5 flats and 3 shops in the building structure for which the purchasers
have paid them consideration of Rs.75 Crores and assured 5 flats in the
development that will take place.
12. Appended to the said Deed of Conveyance are the list of
tenants of the Mhatre Family (landlord) who are also in occupation of
similarly situated rooms just like the Mhatre Family in the building
structure and the chawl structure. Names of Plaintiffs / Appellants and
their predecessors-in-title are all appearing in the said Annexure - 1
appended to the Deed of Conveyance and reference to Annexure - 1 as
found in the said registered Deed of Conveyance as tenants of the
chawl structure and one tenant of the building structure. On internal
page No.18 thereof the parties have specifically agreed and Vendors
have clarified that the said property is sold by the Vendors with rights
and obligations created in favour of tenants who are specified in
Annexure - 1 as appended to the said Deed of Conveyance and the
11 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
Vendors have attorned (emphasis supplied) to the new landlords
(owners) rights relating to all tenants on execution hereof. The Deed of
Conveyance further states that the purchasers alone shall be
responsible to maintain and manage the said property in every respect
at their own cost, risk and responsibility and also that purchasers alone
are entitled to deal with the tenants directly and enjoy the benefits,
monetary or in form of area of the said tenanted premises, of rent,
transfer or surrender of the structures of tenants by doing settlement
with them without any interference from the Vendors.
13. Thus it is prima facie seen that once the tenancy of the
tenants has been attorned to the new landlord, the impugned action of
the Corporation on the face of record appears to be malafide. It is
prima facie not sustainable at all as double standards cannot be
applied by the landlords to the tenants of the chawl. It is vehemently
alleged by Mr. Gharte that the current landlord of the property who is
the purchasers as per the Deed of Conveyance is the person behind the
impugned action.
14. Be that as it may, the impugned action will have to sustain
itself on the strength of its own facts and to merely allege unauthorized
development in an insufficient manner as stated in the impugned
notice and state that the impugned structures are unauthorized is
prima facie unsustainable in law since the impugned structures are
12 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
independent, individual rooms occupied by Plaintiffs / Appellants in
Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl which has been in existence for the past
more than 6 decades. The existence of the notice structures prima facie
date back to the date of its construction by the Mhatre Family.
Documentary evidence pertaining to the past 40 years has been placed
and proved on record by each of the Appellants before me.
15. As opposed to this, the Corporation has filed Affidavit-in-
Reply of the Designated Officer who has issued the impugned notices
and passed the speaking order. These Affidavits-in-Reply are all dated
15.12.2025 and are identical. All that they state is that the impugned
structures namely rooms of the Plaintiffs are unauthorized as they do
not conform to the approved plan dated 20.09.1969. The impugned
action of the Corporation is on the face of record malafide as it cannot
be sustained. On the one hand, the Municipal Corporation calls upon
the Plaintiffs to seek regularization of their structures and in the same
breath the impugned notices allege that the suit structures are fully
unauthorized. Such stand of the Corporation is clearly unsustainable
in law. The impugned notice on the face of record is therefore not
sustainable at all.
16. In the Schedule to the impugned notice, there are no details
given whatsoever of the unauthorized construction and the entire room
structure belonging to Plaintiffs is declared to be unauthorized. Prima
13 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
facie the said action of the Corporation issued for the first time in the
year 2025 after the Corporation has assessed the said rooms for taxes
and collected them for the past four decades is clearly a colourable
exercise of power and malafide and is made only at the behest of
interested parties. Nothing prevented the Corporation from exercising
its rights on the entire Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl since the year 1958 -
1959 when the said chawl was built by the Mhatre Family and the
tenants were inducted in the chawl. It is only now that redevelopment
is on the anvil and considering the prices of the real estate in the city
of Mumbai that such impugned action is taken which is for obvious
reasons.
17. Prima facie the impugned action seems to be at the behest
of interested parties which cannot be ruled out on the face of record. I
say this because there is adequate documentary material placed on
record by each of this 6 Appellants before me which will show the
existence of their structures and the transfer of the suit structures
namely transfer of the tenancy to the current Plaintiffs from their
predecessors-in-title which has not been objected to by the erstwhile
original landlord namely the Mhatre Family. On the contrary, Mhatre
Family has while conveying the larger property to the current landlord
attorned the tenancy of each of the Plaintiffs' Suit structures to the
current landlord. There is overwhelming evidence which is placed on
record in the form of public documents, inter alia, showing existence of
14 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
the suit structures for the past more than 40 years. In such situation, it
is improper, arbitrary and high handed on the part of the Corporation
to allege the said suit structures are unauthorized.
18. The Municipal Corporation has collected property taxes in
respect of the suit structures from the Mhatre Family, copies of which
are appended to the proceedings. Letters have been issued by the
Assistant Assessor and Collector, 'T' Ward to Plaintiffs for producing
the relevant documents so that their names could be entered in the
record of the Municipal Corporation as far back as in the year 1998.
19. It is thus prima facie seen that the impugned action of the
Corporation is a clearly colourable and malafide exercise of power by
the Corporation. The documentary evidence placed by Plaintiffs ought
to have been considered. It is clear that the erstwhile landlord i.e. the
Mhatre Family has sold the larger property alongwith attornment of
tenancy of the tenants including the Plaintiffs / Appellants to the
current landlord and subject to their substantive rights in the suit
structures.
20. It is prima facie seen that occupants of the chawl are the six
Appellants before me. Their names / predecessors-in-title names are all
attorned as tenants residing in the chawl in the registered Deed of
Conveyance. Hence they cannot be deemed to be unauthorized as
stated in the impugned notice. It clearly appears that the action taken
15 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
by the Corporation is at the behest of interested parties to deny
substantive right of the Plaintiffs to them in the redevelopment on the
premise that their suit structures are unauthorized. When the landlord
of the property itself confirms attornment of tenancy, then such
attornment of tenancy is of each and every person who is present on
the property. There cannot be any distinction between the names of
the tenants residing in the A-Wing and B-Wing structure and the shops
therein called 'Hariniwas' which is standing on the said property and
the chawl namely Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl which is standing
alongside of said structure on the subject property. When benefit has
to be given for those residing in the structure, then the residents of the
chawl will also have to be treated at par with them. Therefore it
clearly seems that the impugned action is not in accordance with law
neither there has been any application of mind whatsoever by the
Municipal Corporation and the Designated Officer either before
passing the impugned speaking order or before issuing the impugned
notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act. The action of the
Corporation is clearly not sustainable. In such strong and
overwhelming facts, this Court has no other option than to decide the
suit proceedings itself and remand the matter back to the Corporation
for appropriate action.
21. Copy of Annexure - 1 to the said Deed of Conveyance
showing the names of the tenants in Hariniwas A-wing and B-wing,
16 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
shops and the chawl premises is scanned and reproduced below for
immediate reference:-
17 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
22. From the above, it is seen that attornment of tenancy has
been in respect of all occupants of the said building and the chawl.
Once this is the situation, then the impugned action is clearly not
sustainable as per the impugned notice as also the speaking order
which has been passed with complete non application of mind without
giving any reasons whatsoever.
18 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
23. Both the impugned order and impugned notice of the
Corporation are unsustainable in law. Due process of law is expected to
be followed by the Municipal Corporation uniformly according to law
before issuing the statutory notices. The material produced on record
by all 6 Appellants showing existence of the structure is prima facie
such that existence of the structure stands proven on the face of
record.
24. In view of my aforesaid reasons, all 6 Appeal From Orders
therefore deserve to be allowed. Infact, this is not enough in the facts
of the present case since Plaintiffs / Appellants cannot be left to the
mercy of the Courts. It is clear in the facts and circumstances of the
present case that where the dispensing of justice is misused by the
unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate, the Court must deal
with such situations with firm hands.
25. Hence considering the vagueness of the impugned notice and
speaking order and the detailed Affidavits-in-Reply filed by the
Corporation and as argued by the Corporation's Advocate in the
present Appeal From Orders, there can be no impediment in my
opinion to allow the Notice of Motions as filed by the Plaintiffs before
the Trial Court. It is true that ad-interim order has been challenged
before me, but the facts and circumstances of the present case are so
strong that if the matters are remanded back to the Trial Court, it
19 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
would be another round of ignominy for the Plaintiffs before me and
they will have to undergo one more round of litigation. It is prima
facie evident that because redevelopment is on the anvil, right of the
Plaintiffs is sought to be deprived for obvious reasons. Existence of
Plaintiff's structures prima facie stands proven on the basis of
documentary evidence appended to each Suit Plaint. A strong case for
trial is therefore made out by the Plaintiffs based on the above facts
and circumstances.
26. Considering the strong circumstances in the preset case
which are alluded to herein above, I am of the opinion that the Notice
of Motions as filed before the Trial Court and after considering the
Affidavit-in-Reply filed in Appeal From Orders by the Corporation in all
six matters and after hearing the learned Advocate for the Corporation,
the same deserve to be allowed herein itself in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
27. Hence the impugned ad-interim order dated 19.05.2025
passed in all 6 suit proceedings is quashed and set aside. Resultantly,
all six draft Notice of Motions filed in Long Suit (St.) Nos.7374 of
2025, 7373 of 2025, 7369 of 2025, 7365 of 2025, 7370 of 2025 and
7368 of 2025 all stand allowed in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case and until the Suit proceedings are decided, it is
directed that no coercive action whatsoever shall be taken by the
20 of 21
AO.333.2025 with Group.doc
Corporation against the Plaintiffs' impugned structures under the
impugned notice or the impugned speaking order by the Corporation.
28. The structures of the Plaintiffs stand fully protected from any
coercive action on the part of the Municipal Corporation until the
determination of the suit proceedings in accordance with law.
29. In view of the above, all 6 Appeal From Order Nos.333 of
2025, 334 of 2025, 335 of 2025, 336 of 2025, 337 of 2025 and 338 of
2025 are allowed and disposed.
30. In view of disposal of Appeal From Orders, pending Interim
Application Nos.13488 of 2025 and 8599 of 2025; Interim Application
(St.) No.37307 of 2025; Interim Application Nos.8601 of 2025, 13489
of 2025, 8603 of 2025, 13490 of 2025, 8604 of 2025, 13491 of 2025,
8607 of 2025, 13492 of 2025 and 8610 of 2025 are accordingly
disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.01.05
12:45:44 +0530
21 of 21
