ANITA ASHOK MAPUSKAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORTION OF GREATER OF MUMBAI AND ANR
MCGM's Notices for Unauthorized Structures Quashed: High Court Protects Long-Standing Tenants Rights, Citing Malafide Action and Lack of Due Process.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16
Decision Date: 05-01-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Facts: Several plaintiffs, residing in Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl, challenged statutory notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), alleging unauthorized structures. The plaintiffs claimed their structures existed since before 1962 and that the MCGM's action was at the behest of the landlord/developer. They presented documentary evidence, including ration cards, property tax bills, electricity bills, and electoral roll entries, to support their claim of long-standing existence. The MCGM alleged the structures were unauthorized as they did not conform to a sanctioned plan dated 20.09.1969.
- Procedural Posture: The plaintiffs filed suits and notice of motions before the Trial Court, which passed ad-interim orders against them. The plaintiffs then filed Appeals From Order challenging the Trial Court's orders. The High Court was hearing these appeals.
- Issue: Whether the MCGM's notices under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, alleging unauthorized structures, are sustainable when the plaintiffs present substantial documentary evidence of the structures' long-standing existence and the MCGM has been collecting property taxes for decades; and whether the MCGM followed due process before issuing the notices.
- Holding: The High Court quashed the ad-interim orders passed by the Trial Court, allowed the plaintiffs' Notice of Motions, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the plaintiffs' structures pending the suit proceedings. The Court held the MCGM's actions were unsustainable and appeared to be a malafide exercise of power at the behest of interested parties.
- Reasoning: The Court found the MCGM's notices incongruous and vague, lacking specific details of the alleged unauthorized construction. The Court noted the MCGM failed to follow due process by not conducting any survey or inspection before issuing the notices. The Court emphasized the plaintiffs presented substantial documentary evidence showing the existence of the structures for over 40 years, including attornment of tenancy to the new landlord in a registered Deed of Conveyance. The Court observed that the MCGM's action seemed to be driven by the ongoing redevelopment and an attempt to deprive the plaintiffs of their rights. The Court stated, "It is prima facie evident that because redevelopment is on the anvil, right of the Plaintiffs is sought to be deprived for obvious reasons." The Court concluded that the MCGM's action was a "colourable exercise of power and malafide".
🔒 For Members Only