Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Sameer Baijanath Joshi, is the owner of land admeasuring 3,627.90 sq. metres bearing Plot No.9-A, CTS No. 37 and 38A at Village Juhu, Mumbai, on which a structure known as Chandan Cinema was constructed in 1973. In 2017, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, declaring the structure dangerous and requiring its demolition. The Petitioner stopped operating the cinema and sought to demolish and redevelop the property. However, the Defence authorities (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) objected, stating that the land is within 100 yards of a defence installation and that no construction or demolition can take place without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from them under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 and the Cantonment Act, 2006. The Petitioner argued that the structure is a heritage building and that the Defence authorities have no jurisdiction. The Court held that the Petitioner's claim of heritage status was unsubstantiated as no statutory notification was produced. The Court further held that the land falls within the prohibited distance from a defence installation, and thus the Petitioner must obtain NOC from the Defence authorities before any demolition or redevelopment. The Court directed the Petitioner to apply for NOC within four weeks, and the Defence authorities to decide within eight weeks thereafter. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Heritage Law - Unilateral Claim of Heritage Status - Heritage status cannot be claimed by a private party without statutory notification under the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 or any other law - The Petitioner's claim that the structure is a heritage building was rejected as no notification was produced (Paras 10-12). B) Defence and Security - Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Section 3 - Prohibition on Construction Near Defence Installations - Any construction or reconstruction within 100 yards of a defence installation requires prior permission from the Defence authorities - The Petitioner's land falls within the prohibited distance from a defence installation, and thus NOC is mandatory (Paras 13-15). C) Municipal Law - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Section 354 - Demolition of Dangerous Structure - The MCGM issued a notice under Section 354 declaring the structure dangerous and requiring its demolition - The Petitioner cannot demolish without NOC from Defence authorities (Paras 4-6). D) Property Law - Right to Develop Subject to Statutory Restrictions - The Petitioner's right to demolish and redevelop is subject to compliance with all applicable laws, including obtaining NOC from Defence authorities under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 and the Cantonment Act, 2006 - The Court directed the Petitioner to apply for NOC and the Defence authorities to decide within 8 weeks (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to demolish and redevelop the said structure without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Defence authorities, and whether the said structure has any heritage status.
Final Decision
The Court held that the Petitioner must obtain NOC from the Defence authorities before any demolition or redevelopment. The Petitioner is directed to apply for NOC within four weeks, and the Defence authorities to decide within eight weeks thereafter. The petition is disposed of.
Law Points
- Heritage status cannot be claimed unilaterally without statutory notification
- Defence security concerns override private property rights
- NOC from Defence authorities is mandatory for construction near defence installations
- Works of Defence Act
- 1903
- Cantonment Act
- 2006
