Back
Bombay HC Cracks Down: Repair Nod No Shield for Illegal Builds
In a stern rebuke to unauthorized urban sprawl, the dismissed a writ petition challenging demolition notices issued by the (BMC). A division bench of Justices Kamal Khata and A.S. Gadkari ruled that repair permissions granted by civic authorities do not retroactively legitimize structures or prove they existed before the crucial 1st April 1962 "datum line" for non-residential builds in Mumbai. The decision, pronounced on 29th April 2026, underscores that "illegality is incurable," refusing petitioners' pleas for protection.
Roots in Bharat Coal Compound: A Tale of Contested Sheds
The dispute centers on an industrial shed in Bharat Coal Compound, Bail Bazar, Kurla West, Mumbai—spanning plots Survey No.36, Hissa Nos.15 & 16, CTS No.66 (Part), totaling about 1773 sqm with a 13,061 sq ft ground-floor structure subdivided into six galas. Petitioners Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation (via partner Rakesh Shetty), JAJ Creations Impex Pvt. Ltd., and Paresh P. Parekh claimed the shed was a "tolerated structure" predating the 1962 datum line, citing old BMC tax assessments and permissions.
Trouble brewed with seven BMC notices dated 22nd December 2022 under (MMC Act), followed by speaking orders on 10th March 2023 deeming the entire ground-plus-mezzanine shed illegal. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3448 of 2023, seeking to quash these, arguing procedural lapses and historical legitimacy.
Petitioners' Fortress of Old Papers vs. BMC's Hard Evidence
Led by Senior Advocate S.U. Kamdar, petitioners built their case on BMC records: Assessment No.L3345(3) predating 1962, a 1993 letter from the Assistant Assessor confirming tax assessment from 1st April 1962, a 2012 bill echoing this, 1993 repair permission for a mezzanine, and a 1971 Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) for an adjacent plot implying pre-existing builds via FSI calculations.
They invoked UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India (2021) 2 SCC 551, urging notices must specify violations precisely for fair hearing, claiming speaking orders exceeded show-cause scopes.
BMC, represented by Senior Advocate Shailesh Shah, countered with Tikka Sheets showing the petitioners' plot as empty (dotted boundaries, no hatched structures pre-datum), City Survey's MR plan marking the shed in red (post-datum), and an affidavit from officer Sanjay Mallinath Dudhbhate dismantling claims. Layout plans allegedly confirmed no pre-1962 build.
Dissecting the Datum Line: Permissions No Panacea
The bench meticulously sifted documents, finding Tikka Sheets damning—no hatched lines for structures on petitioners' plot. Assessment bills proved land taxes but not building existence or dimensions pre-1962. The 1993 letter admitted taxes sans property details, while repair permissions presumed existence but demanded independent proof for datum protection.
Echoing Supreme Court wisdom, the court cited Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705 on curbing unplanned growth, Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767) declaring "illegality is incurable" and decrying regularization as environmental sabotage, and Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin (2025 SCC OnLine SC 995) urging courts to shun impunity for violators.
Justices lambasted BMC lapses in granting permissions without verifying legality, holding officers accountable yet refusing wrongdoers' windfall:
"Granting reliefs to the Petitioners would only encourage the public perception that one can construct illegally and regularise the same by obtaining such permissions subsequently."
Media reports, like those highlighting the court's stance on repair permissions failing to legitimize builds, align seamlessly with this judicial hammer on civic malfeasance.
Key Observations
"A permission to repair a structure, given subsequent to the datum line, cannot prove either its existence prior to datum line or it being authorised.""Illegality is incurable."
"The concerned Officers who gave such permissions are responsible and the cause of these rampant illegalities in the State."
"Unauthorized constructions... have an effect on resources like electricity, ground water and access to roads, which are primarily designed to be made available in orderly development."
Demolition Green Light: No Stay, Ripple Effects Ahead
The writ stands dismissed; Interim Application (L) No.5806 of 2026 also disposed. Petitioners' last-ditch plea for four-week stay extension to appeal the Supreme Court was shot down, given the "palpably illegal" structure.
This ruling fortifies BMC's demolition arsenal against post-datum encroachments, signaling stricter scrutiny of permissions and assessments. For Mumbai's teeming industrial pockets, it warns: historical haze won't cloak concrete violations—planned development reigns supreme.
