Back
G. S. KULKARNI
Surendra Subhedar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Asst. Municipal Commissioner, Mcgm – Respondent
Key Points: - The appellant failed to establish legal ownership of the land or any legal right to occupy it; MCGM shown as owner in city survey records [4000709930009] (!) - Stalls are unauthorized; public interest in road widening project overrides individual interests; difficulty in granting temporary injunction for a public project [4000709930012] (!) - The trial court’s order dismissing the notice of motion for temporary injunction was rightly upheld; no prima facie case for injunction based on ownership or rights [4000709930013] (!) - There were 17 stalls claimed by the appellant’s tenants; notices issued under Sec. 314 MMC Act; stallholders themselves did not file independent proceedings [4000709930003] (!) - Land identified as land of MCGM and linked to road widening and storm water drainage project in public interest [4000709930005] (!) - Appellant’s documents (7/12 extract, certain letters) do not constitute title documents; other records show MCGM ownership [4000709930007] (!) [4000709930008] (!) - The appellate court affirmed that no prima facie case for temporary injunction existed; large public interest in project outweighed private stalls (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
G.S.KULKARNI, J. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff assailing an order dtd. 23/1/2023 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Judge, City Civil Court at Mumbai whereby a notice of motion (Notice of Motion No.4704 of 2022) filed by the appellant/plaintiff praying for a temporary injunction against the respondent/Municipal Corporation (for short, "MCGM") has been dismissed.
2. The suit in question (L.C. Suit No. 2801 of 2022) came to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by a notice issued by the respondent (for short "MCGM") under Sec. 3141 of the Mumbai 1 Power to remove without notice anything erected, deposited or hawked in contravention of sec. 312, 313 or 313A Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, "MMC Act"). The prayers in the suit are to the effect the said notice be declared to be null and void and for a permanent injunction to restrain the MCGM from implementing the impugned notice.
3. At the outset, it is required to be stated that in paragraph 3(a) of the plaint the appellant/ plaintiff has claimed to be the owner and occupier of the land described as CTS No.1491 admeasuring 175 sq. mtrs. situated at Mulund (West), Mumbai. In paragraph 1 o
The court emphasized the public interest in road widening projects and the lack of legal rights for unauthorized stall holders, highlighting the importance of larger public interest over individual o....
The respondent authority is the lawful owner of the Final Plot No. 49 and therefore, unauthorized constructions of tin sheet sheds with iron angles and guarders are without any authority of Rules and....
The court established that the Municipal Corporation has the authority to take action against unauthorized structures, regardless of their status as censused properties, and that the cancellation of ....
Point of Law : It is settled law that if a project undertaken by local body is beneficial for larger public, inconvenience to small number of people is to be accepted - Thus, proposition of law is th....
Municipal officers have a duty to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, as per the provisions of the law and government directives.
Unauthorized structures on public streets removable without notice; tax payments, electricity bills do not legitimize or create equity; clean hands doctrine bars relief to encroachers abusing process....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
