High Court Upholds Demolition Notice for Long-Standing Unauthorized Street Structure, Dismisses Appeal With Costs

A single-judge bench of Justice Kamal Khata heard an appeal and related contempt petition arising from a City Civil Court order which had dismissed an interim application seeking to restrain the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from demolishing a shop structure on M.G. Road, Santacruz (W). The petitioning occupier challenged a notice issued under Section 314 of the BMC Act and sought injunctive relief and restoration after partial demolition.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court order, held that prolonged possession of an unauthorised structure on public land did not confer any title or equity, and dismissed the contempt petition while directing departmental inquiry into municipal lapses. The Court emphasised that possession and municipal assessments did not create lawful title and noted the principle of denying relief to those who approached the court with "tainted hands." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is well settled that payment of user charges to the Municipal Corporation, electricity bills, shop and establishment registration, or licences for commercial activity do not create or evidence title. None of the documents relied upon by the Appellant establishes that the structure existed prior to the datum line of 1st January 1961 or that it was erected with lawful authority.” The Court further remarked that prolonged retention of unauthorised structures "sends an adverse signal and has the effect of encouraging similar illegal constructions."

Background

The dispute arose after the BMC issued a notice dated 30 July 2019 under Section 314 of the BMC Act seeking removal of unauthorised structures on a public street. The petitioner, Preeti Manohar Sakpal, relied on an unregistered 1986 agreement, decades of electricity bills, property tax payments and a shop and establishment certificate to claim long-standing occupation and sought an interim injunction to prevent demolition. The BMC maintained that the structure measured approximately 10.40 m x 1.6 m and stood on the municipal footpath/public street without sanctioned plans or approvals, and that the notice targeted obstructions to public traffic flow.

The High Court analysed documentary evidence and precedent. It held that the unregistered agreement was inadmissible to prove title over public land and reiterated binding authority that assessment to property tax, payment of electricity bills or licences did not amount to regularisation (citing Sidharam M. Yanagandul and related decisions). The Court applied the statutory definition of "street" under Section 3(w) and concluded that encroachments on public streets fell within the ambit of Section 314 (relying on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Premnagar Zopadpatti Committee Society). The Court found procedural irregularity in that the petitioner did not pursue statutory remedies under Section 527 before filing suit, and treated attempts to rely on such documentary indicia as an endeavour to "confer legitimacy upon an otherwise unlawful occupation." The Court recorded that partial demolition occurred in a wider drive and accepted the Corporation's apology and restorative action, but directed the Municipal Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into systemic failure and placed a stern warning on further violations.

Final orders included dismissal of the appeal with costs of ₹5,00,000 to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks, upholding the City Civil Court order dated 7 May 2024, dismissal of the contempt petition with warning, vacating interim relief, and listing the matter for compliance. The Court noted the principle that a litigant who seeks to "pollute the stream of justice" by misrepresentation "is not entitled to any relief."

Case Details: Case No.: Contempt Petition No. 330 of 2025 (Appeal from Order No. 874 of 2024) Case Title: Preeti Manohar Sakpal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek L. Tripathi a/w. Adv. Bharat Tiwari For the Respondent(s): Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. S.B. Vajale i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi (for BMC); Dr. Dhruti Kapadia a/w. Adv. Kavita Dhanuka (for Respondent No.2)