[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Radha Gopal Rao vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
903.AOST.6803.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6803 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 6805 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 6803 OF 2026
Radha Gopal Rao .. Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and
Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Afin Pathan a/w. Mr. Rafiq Gori, Sharin Pathan and Mr.
Satyajeet Salve, Advocates for Appellant.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 10, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Pathan, learned Advocate for Appellant.
2. The impugned order is passed by the learned Trial Court
rejecting interim relief in the Suit proceedings filed by Plaintiff who is
Appellant before me. By virtue of the investigation carried out, the
Special Investigating Team (for short 'SIT') determined certain
unauthorized constructions in respect of certain CTS numbers, details
of which are duly stated in the impugned order. The learned Trial
Court has assumed the subject property / house of Appellant - Plaintiff
to be one amongst the said CTS numbers. When the Suit plaint
appended in the Appeal From Order is seen and more specifically on
1 of 4
903.AOST.6803.2026.doc
perusal of paragraph Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the Suit plaint, it is prima faice
seen that the property of Plaintiff is situated on CTS No.140 which is a
completely different CTS number other than those investigated.
3. The relevant documentary evidence evidencing subsistence
and existence of Plaintiff's suit structure dates back to 1960, details of
which are appended to the Appeal From Order. Infact, the cognizance
of the same has also been taken by the learned Trial Court in the
impugned order. It appears that Appellant applied for repair
permission of the dilapidated manglore roof tiles of the ceiling of the
Plaintiff's suit structure for which the Municipal Corporation granted
repair permission and Plaintiff undertook the said repairs in
accordance with the said permission.
4. Prima facie, from the record it is clearly seen that the
investigation was carried out by the SIT in respect of unauthorized
construction of various CTS numbers as stated in the impugned order.
While recording of the case of the Municipal Corporation it does not
refer to or relate to Plaintiff's CTS number or the suit structure.
5. The dichotomy is prima facie seen by the Court on the face
of record. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice issued to
Plaintiff and the speaking order passed by the Designated Officer of the
Corporation cannot be sustained on prima facie evidence which is
placed on record by the learned Advocate for Plaintiff - Appellant.
2 of 4
903.AOST.6803.2026.doc
6. The impugned order is therefore stayed forthwith. No action
whatsoever in terms of the impugned order or in furtherance of the
impugned notice issued by the Corporation or the speaking order
passed by the Designated Officer of the Corporation shall be taken by
the Corporation against Plaintiff's suit structure situated on CTS
No.140, Erangel Village, Madh, Behinid Mantra Hotel, Madh Marve
Road, Malad (West), Mumbai.
7. Copy of this order shall be served forthwith on the
Corporation today itself by the Advocate for Plaintiff - Appellant. No
demolition whatsoever shall be undertaken until the present Appeal
From Order is heard for admission by this Court. It is directed that no
coercive steps shall be taken against Plaintiff's suit structure by the
Corporation.
8. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents. Humdast
permitted.
9. In addition to Court notice, Appellant is permitted to serve
copy of Appeal From Order, Interim Application and this order on
Respondents - Corporation and inform about the next date of hearing
by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate Affidavit of
service with tangible proof thereof on or before the next date.
10. Respondents - Corporation is directed to take cognizance of
this order and file its Affidavit-in-Reply on or before the next date.
3 of 4
903.AOST.6803.2026.doc
Copy of the same shall be served on the other side in advance.
11. Rejoinder, if any, is directed to be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
12. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order
downloaded from the website of the High Court of Bombay.
13. Stand over to 21st April 2026.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.03.10
14:58:25 +0530
4 of 4
