Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arun Nathuram Gaikwad, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the construction of a temple by respondent Nos.3 to 17 in a crowded area of Mumbai without obtaining any permission from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (respondent Nos.1 and 2). The petitioner alleged that the construction was unauthorized and had disturbed the atmosphere in the locality, leading to disputes. The Municipal Corporation filed a reply through its Assistant Engineer, Shri R.S. Kurnur, stating that a construction proposal was given in 1999, but the then Assistant Engineer had informed the respondents by letter dated 19th June 1999 that various compliances were required, failing which the proposal could not proceed. Since the necessary documents were not supplied, a stop work notice was issued. However, in utter disregard of the notice, the construction work proceeded. The court noted that it was not disputed that no permission whatsoever was obtained for the construction. Additionally, the reply of the Municipal Corporation stated that at the highest, only 6 ft. of access was available to the property, which was also in view of an order obtained in the City Civil Court. The court held that the construction was unauthorized and in violation of the Development Control Regulations. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to demolish the unauthorized construction within four weeks and to recover the cost of demolition from the respondents. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Unauthorized Construction - Demolition - Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Section 351 - The petitioner challenged the construction of a temple by respondent Nos.3 to 17 without any permission from the Municipal Corporation. The court noted that no permission was obtained and a stop work notice was issued but ignored. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to demolish the unauthorized construction within four weeks and recover the cost from the respondents. (Paras 1-5) B) Municipal Law - Access Width - Development Control Regulations - The court noted that adequate access was not available to the property, with only 6 ft. access at the highest, which was insufficient. The court held that the construction was in violation of the Development Control Regulations and directed demolition. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the construction of a temple without obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation and in violation of stop work notice can be allowed to continue.
Final Decision
The court directed the Municipal Corporation to demolish the unauthorized construction within four weeks and to recover the cost of demolition from respondent Nos.3 to 17. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Unauthorized construction
- municipal permission
- stop work notice
- access width
- demolition order
- compliance with DCR
