Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against BMC Demolition of Unauthorized Structure in Jira Galli. Notice Under Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 Held Valid as Structure Was on Street and No Prior Notice Required.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 16
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Bashir Nazir Sayyed, was the original plaintiff who filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay seeking a declaration that a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (the Act) issued by the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) was illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the BMC from demolishing his shed (the suit premises) located at Jira Galli, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The plaintiff claimed that he had been residing and carrying on business in the suit premises for about 30 years, that the premises were assessed to municipal taxes which he paid regularly, and that he had electricity connections. He alleged that the notice was issued at the instance of owners of a nearby petrol pump and that the BMC acted vindictively because the High Court had earlier awarded him costs of Rs.10,000 in a contempt petition. The BMC contended that the suit premises were an unauthorized structure on a street and that the notice under Section 314 was valid. The trial court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the plaintiff's own admission that Jira Galli was a defunct shortcut, and the municipal assessment records which described the land as belonging to Dr. D'Montee. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit premises were not on a street or that he had any lawful title or right to occupy the land. The court further held that Section 314 of the Act does not require a show cause notice before demolition of a structure on a street, and that municipal assessment and tax receipts do not confer ownership or legality of the structure. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Municipal Law - Demolition of Unauthorized Structure - Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 - Notice under Section 314 does not require a show cause notice before demolition of a structure on a street - The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit premises were not on a street or that he had any lawful title or right to occupy the land - The municipal assessment and tax receipts do not confer ownership or legality of the structure - The appeal was dismissed (Paras 2-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 for demolition of the suit premises was illegal and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the suit premises.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the City Civil Court dated 30th March, 2004 in Long Cause Suit No. 665 of 1998 upheld. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
  • 1988 does not require show cause notice before demolition of unauthorized structures on streets
  • burden of proof on plaintiff to establish title or lawful possession
  • municipal assessment and tax receipts do not confer ownership or legality of structure
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 81

First Appeal No. 265 of 2003

2005-01-13

Smt. Ranjana Desai

Ms. Nandini Gupta i/b M.P. Vashi & Co. for appellant, Mr. J. Xavier for BMC

Bashir Nazir Sayyed

Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and injunction regarding demolition of structure by municipal corporation.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that notice under Section 314 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 is illegal and permanent injunction restraining demolition.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff alleged that BMC issued illegal notice and demolished his shed without due process.

Previous Decisions

Earlier suit No. 5160 of 1994 was withdrawn on 4-7-1995 after BMC stated due process would be followed. Contempt petition filed in High Court resulted in award of Rs.10,000 costs and liberty to reconstruct.

Issues

Whether the notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 was illegal and arbitrary. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the suit premises.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the suit premises were not on a street, that he had been in possession for 30 years, paid taxes and electricity bills, and that the notice was issued malafide at the instance of petrol pump owners. Defendant BMC contended that the structure was unauthorized and on a street, and that Section 314 notice was valid and no show cause notice was required.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988, the municipal corporation has the power to demolish any structure on a street without prior show cause notice. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the structure is not on a street or that he has lawful title or right to occupy the land. Municipal assessment and tax receipts do not confer ownership or legality of the structure.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has not been able to prove that the suit premises are not on a street. Section 314 of the said Act does not require a show cause notice before demolition of a structure on a street. The municipal assessment and tax receipts do not confer any ownership or legality of the structure.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed Long Cause Suit No. 665 of 1998 in City Civil Court at Bombay seeking declaration and injunction. Suit dismissed on 30th March, 2004. Plaintiff appealed to High Court by First Appeal No. 265 of 2003.

Acts & Sections

  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988: 314
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Additional Compensation Under Section 30(3) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for Land Acquired Under National Highways Act, 1956 — Petitioners Entitled to 12% Additional Compensation on Market Value Including Multiplication Factor-2 ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Confirms Death Sentence for Accused in Rape and Murder of Two-Year-Old Child. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, Section 376A IPC, and Section 6 of POCSO Act, finding the crime to be in the 'rarest of rare' categ...