Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Demolition Notice for Unauthorized Floors Constructed Without Approval. Court holds that occupants of illegally constructed floors cannot claim violation of natural justice when notices were served on the owner/developer and society, and the BMC is not precluded from acting on glaring illegalities beyond the scope of a prior writ petition.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2560
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, an occupant of Flat No.801 on the 8th floor of Shivanjali Co-operative Housing Society building, challenged a notice dated 12th June 2018 issued by the BMC under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) directing removal of unauthorized constructions from the 2nd to 8th floors. The building approvals were only for ground plus 1st floor, but the developer constructed up to the 8th floor without any occupancy certificate or fire clearance. The Petitioner argued that the notice was not served on individual occupants, that the final order went beyond the show cause notice dated 12th September 2017 which listed only six specific illegalities, and that the BMC's action transgressed an earlier order dated 7th June 2017 in Writ Petition No.56 of 2017 filed by the Society, which was limited to certain structures. The BMC contended that the construction was patently illegal, that notices were served on the owner/developer and society, that the show cause notice put the parties on notice of unauthorized construction, and that the prior order did not bar action on other illegalities. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that individual notice to each occupant is not mandatory for patently illegal constructions, that the final order did not breach natural justice as the parties responded on merits, and that the BMC was not precluded from acting on glaring illegalities discovered during inspection. The Court also noted that the developer's application for regularisation implied admission of illegality and had been rejected.

Headnote

A) Municipal Law - Demolition Notice - Section 53 MRTP Act - Natural Justice - Notice served on owner/developer and society, not on individual occupants - Held that where construction is patently illegal and without any approval, individual notice to each occupant is not mandatory; principles of natural justice are satisfied if affected parties have opportunity to be heard (Paras 5, 15, 18).

B) Municipal Law - Show Cause Notice - Scope of Final Order - Section 53 MRTP Act - Show cause notice listed six specific illegalities, but final order directed removal of 2nd to 8th floors - Held that where the show cause notice put the party on notice of unauthorized construction, and the party responded on merits, the final order can cover all illegalities discovered during inspection; no breach of natural justice (Paras 6, 18).

C) Municipal Law - Prior Court Orders - Effect on Subsequent Action - Section 53 MRTP Act - Prior writ petition restricted to specific illegalities - Held that BMC is not precluded from taking action on other glaring illegalities discovered during inspection; such action does not violate the prior order (Paras 7, 17).

D) Municipal Law - Regularisation - Rejection of Application - Section 53 MRTP Act - Developer applied for regularisation of unauthorized floors - Held that such application implies admission of illegality; rejection of regularisation confirms that construction is unauthorized and liable to demolition (Paras 16, 24).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned demolition notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act is vitiated by breach of natural justice for non-service on individual occupants, whether the final order travels beyond the show cause notice, and whether the BMC's action transgresses the order in a prior writ petition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

Law Points

  • Principles of natural justice
  • Scope of show cause notice
  • Regularisation of unauthorized constructions
  • Duty of municipal authorities to act on illegal constructions
  • Effect of prior court orders on subsequent action
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 112

Writ Petition No. 3616 of 2018

2024-09-11

M. S. Sonak, Kamal Khata

Mr Bhushan Joshi (for Petitioner), Mr Rajshekhar Govilkar (Senior Advocate for BMC), Mr Mandar Soman (for Respondent No.5)

Rafique Rahemtullah Kabani

The Assistant Engineer & Designated Officer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, M/S. A. G. Developers, M/S. Rao & Associates, Shivanjali Co-operative Hsg Soc Ltd

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a demolition notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act for unauthorized construction of floors 2 to 8.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the notice dated 12th June 2018 and direction to BMC not to implement it until regularisation application is decided.

Filing Reason

Petitioner, an occupant of flat on 8th floor, challenged the demolition notice on grounds of breach of natural justice, the final order going beyond show cause notice, and violation of a prior court order.

Previous Decisions

Writ Petition No.56 of 2017 filed by the Society was disposed of on 7th June 2017 directing action against certain structures; Contempt Petitions No.68 and 69 of 2017 were filed alleging non-compliance.

Issues

Whether the impugned notice under Section 53 MRTP Act is vitiated for non-service on individual occupants? Whether the final order dated 12th June 2018 travels beyond the show cause notice dated 12th September 2017? Whether the BMC's action transgresses the order dated 7th June 2017 in Writ Petition No.56 of 2017?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner: Notice not served on individual occupants, breach of natural justice; final order goes beyond show cause notice; BMC's action violates prior court order. BMC: Construction patently illegal; notices served on owner/developer and society; show cause notice covered unauthorized construction; prior order does not bar action on other illegalities; regularisation rejected.

Ratio Decidendi

For patently illegal constructions without any approval, individual notice to each occupant is not mandatory; the final order can cover all illegalities discovered during inspection if the show cause notice put the party on notice; a prior court order limited to specific illegalities does not preclude the BMC from acting on other glaring illegalities.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner challenges notice No.CE/4362/BSII/AH dated 12th June 2018 under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP Act') by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ('BMC') for the removal of the structure viz. (i) work carried out beyond the approved plan, i.e. 4th floor to 8th floor, (ii) work carried out beyond the approved plan i.e. 2nd floor to 8th floor Phase 1. Mr Govilkar submitted that the building approvals were only for the ground + 1st floor of the Society's building. Still, with impunity and complete disregard for law and regulations, the builders and developers constructed the 2nd to 8th floors.

Procedural History

Writ Petition No.56 of 2017 filed by the Society was disposed of on 7th June 2017. BMC issued show cause notice on 12th September 2017. After considering responses, BMC issued the impugned notice/speaking order on 12th June 2018. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3616 of 2018 challenging the same. Contempt Petitions No.68 and 69 of 2017 were also filed by the Society. The petition was heard and reserved on 30th August 2024, and judgment pronounced on 11th September 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 53
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Workman's Appeal Against Industrial Tribunal's Award on Representation and Compromise. Union's Espousal of Individual Dispute Precludes Independent Representation Under Sections 2(k) and 36 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Reviews Revision Against Order Rejecting Plaint Rejection Application in Landlord-Tenant Dispute During Corporate Insolvency Moratorium. The court examined whether a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent filed during C...