M/S. ROYAL DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS v. MR. SHAFITULLAH CHAUDHARY
Dismissal of Appeals Against Demolition Notices: Structures on Land Custodia Legis, Frivolous Suits, and Abuse of Process; Exemplary Costs Imposed.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:54650
Decision Date: 11-12-2025
List of Laws
Section 351 of MMC Act; Code of Civil Procedure; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; SAFEMA (Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act); Constitution of India
- Facts: Several Appellants filed suits challenging Section 351 notices issued by the Municipal Corporation regarding unauthorized structures on land that is custodia legis. The Appellants claimed to be tenants with structures existing prior to 01.01.1961, relying on rent receipts and electricity bills. A developer intervened, claiming the Appellants were obstructing a development project. Two of the Appellants had executed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA) with the developer.
- Procedural Posture: This is a group of five appeals from orders, consolidated for hearing due to identical facts. The appeals challenge orders related to Section 351 notices and ad-interim orders passed by the City Civil Court in separate suit proceedings initiated by the Appellants. Intervention applications by the developer were also considered.
- Issue: Whether the Appellants are entitled to protection from demolition of their structures based on claims of tenancy and pre-1961 existence, despite the land being custodia legis, prior court orders, and the execution of PAAA agreements by some Appellants?
- Holding: No, the appeals are dismissed. The suits filed by the Appellants are deemed frivolous and an abuse of the process of law.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the Appellants suppressed material information and approached the court with unclean hands. Two Appellants had already executed PAAA agreements, negating their claims. The documents presented to prove pre-1961 existence were deemed insufficient. The land was custodia legis and subject to prior court orders for removal of encroachments. The Court emphasized that fraud and justice cannot coexist and imposed costs on the Appellants, directing the Collector to recover the costs as arrears of land revenue if necessary. The Court relied on previous orders and Supreme Court judgments regarding frivolous litigation and abuse of the legal process, citing Alok Chopra Vs. Ravi Fisheries and Sciemed Overseas Incorporated v BOC India Ltd.
🔒 For Members Only