Bombay High Court Allows Developer's Petition Challenging Stop Work Notice in Slum Redevelopment Project. Corporation's Notice Under Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Quashed for Non-Compliance with DCR 33(7) Prior Approval Requirement.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 120
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s Crescent Property Developers, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1956, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a stop work notice dated 2nd March 2012 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (respondents) under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The property in question, known as Gora Gandhi Chawl, situated at C.S No. 337(Part) and 1/337(Part) of Malbar Hill, Tardeo Division, Belasis Road, Tardeo, Mumbai, was acquired by the Corporation under a Slum Clearance Scheme. The property consisted of old structures with 168 tenements, of which 165 were residential. The petitioner was engaged in redevelopment of the property. The Corporation issued the stop work notice alleging that construction was being carried out without permission. The petitioner contended that the notice was illegal and without jurisdiction as the Corporation had not obtained prior approval under Development Control Regulation 33(7) from the Chief Engineer before issuing the notice. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Corporation cannot invoke Section 354A without first obtaining prior approval under DCR 33(7). The stop work notice was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Municipal Law - Stop Work Notice - Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Validity - The petitioner challenged a stop work notice issued under Section 354A for construction without permission - The court held that the Corporation cannot invoke Section 354A without first obtaining prior approval under DCR 33(7) from the Chief Engineer - The notice was quashed as it was issued without following the mandatory procedure (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the stop work notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, without prior approval under DCR 33(7) is valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The stop work notice dated 2nd March 2012 is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
  • 1888
  • Development Control Regulations 33(7)
  • Stop work notice
  • Prior approval
  • Slum redevelopment
  • Construction without permission
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 29

Writ Petition No. 749 of 2013

2013-06-10

Ranjit More, J.

Mr. Vijay Thorat, Senior Counsel with Mr. J.S. Chandnani & Mr. H.V. Kode i/by Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant for petitioner; Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel with Ms. K.H. Mastakar for respondents/BMC

M/s Crescent Property Developers

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging stop work notice issued under Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of stop work notice dated 2nd March 2012.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that the stop work notice was illegal and without jurisdiction as the Corporation did not obtain prior approval under DCR 33(7).

Issues

Whether the stop work notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is valid without prior approval under DCR 33(7).

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Corporation cannot invoke Section 354A without prior approval under DCR 33(7) from the Chief Engineer. Respondents argued in support of the notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Corporation cannot invoke Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 without first obtaining prior approval under DCR 33(7) from the Chief Engineer.

Judgment Excerpts

The Corporation cannot invoke Section 354A without first obtaining prior approval under DCR 33(7) from the Chief Engineer.

Procedural History

Petition filed under Article 226 challenging stop work notice dated 2nd March 2012. Rule issued and matter heard finally by consent.

Acts & Sections

  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 354A
  • Constitution of India: 226
  • Indian Partnership Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Developer's Petition Challenging Stop Work Notice in Slum Redevelopment Project. Corporation's Notice Under Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Quashed for Non-Compliance with DCR 33(7) Prior Approval Requi...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Enhances Compensation for Claimants in Motor Accident Death Case — Tribunal's Award Modified for Loss of Dependency and Future Prospects. The Court applied multiplier of 18 and added 40% future prospects to the income of the...