Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Injunction in Municipal Demolition Case. Assessment of Property Tax Does Not Confer Legality on Unauthorised Construction Under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 74
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, a tenant of a shop in Mumbai, filed an appeal against an order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, refusing to grant ad interim injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from demolishing a temporary shed (the suit shed) located behind three shops. The appellant claimed tenancy since 1974 and argued that the shed was not unauthorised as it had been assessed for municipal taxes since 1979. The Municipal Corporation had issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, on 5th June 2006, alleging that the shed was constructed without planning permission. After hearing the appellant, the Corporation concluded that the shed was erected after 17th April 1962, the cut-off date for protection under a government resolution, and thus was liable to demolition. The appellant then filed Suit No.3035 of 2006 seeking injunction, which was refused by the trial court. The High Court, in appeal, considered whether the trial court's refusal was justified. The court noted that the shed was admittedly constructed without permission and that the Corporation had determined it was built after 1962. The court held that assessment of property tax does not make an unauthorised structure legal, and that the cut-off date for protection was 17th April 1962. Since the shed was erected after that date, it was liable to demolition. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the trial court's order.

Headnote

A) Municipal Law - Unauthorised Construction - Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Ad Interim Injunction - The appellant sought injunction against demolition of a shed constructed without permission - The court held that assessment of property tax does not confer legality on an unauthorised structure and that the cut-off date for protection was 17th April 1962 - Held that the trial court rightly refused injunction as the shed was erected after the cut-off date (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in refusing ad interim injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit shed on the ground that it was an unauthorised structure.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dated 10th July 2006, refusing ad interim injunction is upheld.

Law Points

  • Assessment of property tax does not make an unauthorised structure legal
  • Unauthorised construction after the cut-off date of 17th April 1962 is liable to demolition
  • No injunction can be granted against demolition of unauthorised structure
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 41

Appeal from Order No.506 of 2006

2006-09-26

D.G. Karnik

Mr. Prashant G. Sawant for appellants, Mr. A.R. Patil A.G.P. for State of Maharashtra, Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for B.M.C.

Shri Sidharam M. Yanagandul & Anr.

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against refusal of ad interim injunction restraining demolition of an alleged unauthorised structure.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought ad interim injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit shed.

Filing Reason

The Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, to show cause why the suit shed should not be demolished as it was constructed without permission.

Previous Decisions

The City Civil Court, Mumbai, refused to grant ad interim injunction in Suit No.3035 of 2006.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in refusing ad interim injunction against demolition of the suit shed. Whether assessment of property tax makes an unauthorised structure legal.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the suit shed was not unauthorised as it was assessed for municipal taxes since 1979. Respondent Municipal Corporation contended that the shed was constructed without permission and after the cut-off date of 17th April 1962, and thus liable to demolition.

Ratio Decidendi

Assessment of property tax does not make an unauthorised structure legal. The cut-off date for protection of unauthorised structures is 17th April 1962 as per government resolution. Since the suit shed was erected after that date, it is liable to demolition and no injunction can be granted.

Judgment Excerpts

Assessment of property tax does not make an unauthorised structure legal. The unauthorised structures erected prior to 17th April, 1962 -datum line- only were protected as per the government resolution.

Procedural History

The Municipal Corporation issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act on 5th June 2006. After hearing the appellant, the Corporation ordered demolition. The appellant filed Suit No.3035 of 2006 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, seeking injunction. The trial court refused ad interim injunction on 10th July 2006. The appellant filed the present appeal against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 351
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Injunction in Municipal Demolition Case. Assessment of Property Tax Does Not Confer Legality on Unauthorised Construction Under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Husband's Appeal for Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Allegations of Cruelty Were Vague and Desertion Not Proven, Affirming Family Court's Dismissal of Divorce Petition.