Back
Bombay HC Sounds Alarm: 's 'Shocking' Blitz Demolition Faces Judicial Scrutiny
In a stern interim order, the has pulled up the () for what it called a "" and "" demolition of a long-standing residential-commercial structure in Malad West. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, hearing an appeal filed by Ashok Mahadev Kule, issued notice to the and directed its Deputy Municipal Commissioner to file a personal affidavit explaining the rushed action. The court warned that failure to justify the process could lead to orders for restoration of the demolished premises.
From Notice to Rubble: A 13-Day Timeline That Raised Red Flags
The dispute centers on a structure comprising 15 (later claimed as 23) rooms at CTS No. 1, Survey No. 39, Village Valnai, near Mitchchowki Metro Station in Malad West. Appellant Ashok Mahadev Kule, whose father faced a similar notice in , argued the building was a censused structure over five decades old, backed by census certificates, non-agricultural assessment orders from , and other records proving its existence and use for residential and commercial purposes.
On , issued a notice under , alleging unauthorized construction without sanctioned plans. Kule filed a detailed reply on . Shockingly, on —mere four days later and without notice or hearing—the Designated Officer passed an "" deeming it unauthorized and ordering immediate removal. Demolition followed on , completing the process in just 13 days.
Kule sued in Suit No. 321 of 2026, seeking to quash the notice, order, and demolition while praying for restoration to the . The trial court dismissed his Notice of Motion No. 629 on , but granted liberty to apply to for reconstruction, to be considered within 60 days. Kule appealed via Appeal from Order No. 351 of 2026.
Plaintiff's Cry: 'Extraneous Motives and Procedural Foul Play'
Represented by Advocates , , and , Kule painted a picture of overreach. He highlighted the notice against his father for the same structure, ignored documentary proof of its antiquity, and alleged violation of 's own circular mandating a 15-day response window post-show-cause notice and personal hearings. Kule claimed no opportunity was given, especially amid a family bereavement that kept him away. He accused the of demolishing more rooms (23 vs. alleged 12-15) possibly at a developer's behest to erase evidence of occupancy, evading obligations for alternate accommodation.
's Silence: Court Demands Answers
's counsel, , had little to counter at the mentioning stage. The court noted the Corporation's failure to await the prescribed period or follow due process, flouting its guidelines where officers are "personally responsible" for premature demolitions.
Judicial Lens: Echoes of Past Abuses, Tilt Toward Plaintiff
Justice Jadhav drew parallels to
Jagjitsingh Jogindersingh Reen v.
(Appeal from Order (St) No. 9167 of 2026), where planning authorities hastily targeted large, occupied structures to favor developers. He observed a pattern:
"where large structures are held and occupied by parties in Mumbai for a considerable length of time... at the behest of the Developer... Corporation acts with alarming haste... to extinguish evidence."
The court emphasized overwhelming evidence (pages 69-100 of the appeal record) proving the structure's legality, slamming the order for ignoring it. 's "" was deemed "shocking," especially against its circular.
Key Observations: Court's Blunt Quotes Cut Deep
“Such action of and efficiency shown by the Corporation is shocking in the present case.”
(Justice Milind N. Jadhav on 's 13-day demolition sprint)“Corporation cannot take law into its own hands, deny the , deny complying with guidelines issued in its own Circular and then not be answerable to anybody. Corporation is answerable to this Court.”
“ the invocation of such impugned action by Corporation in such circumstances is not .”
These remarks, echoed in media reports slamming 's "" conduct, underscore the court's frustration.
Roadmap Ahead: Affidavit or Rebuild?
The court issued notice returnable , mandating 's Dy. Municipal Commissioner to disclose officers' names, explain timeline violations, and justify skipping hearings. The Municipal Commissioner must ensure compliance. Absent "cogent, satisfactory" reasons, risks a reconstruction directive.
This interim ruling signals judicial intolerance for municipal shortcuts, potentially deterring hasty demolitions and bolstering protections for long-standing structures. For Mumbai's occupants facing development pressures, it offers a blueprint: strong documentary proof can force accountability.
