The demolition of the plaintiff's structure by the corporation was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, entitling the plaintiff to temporary accommodation and costs.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. This is an absolutely unfortunate case where the plaintiff’s structure is high-handedly and illegally demolished by the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“corporation”) under the garb of implementation of the redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(9) of Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034 (“DCPR 2034”). The plaintiff was occupying the demolished structure for the purpose of providing charitable services of food and shelter to the poor and needy cancer patients receiving treatment for cancer from the Tata Memorial Hospital. The plaintiff’s structure, which is demolished, was situated on a municipal plot that is the subject matter of the redevelopment scheme, which is situated adjacent to the Tata Memorial Hospital.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 14^th February 2025, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. Since the structure occupied by the plaintiff is held eligible for permanent rehabilitation under the scheme as reflected in Annexure II, a submission was made on behalf of the appellant on the very first day of the hearing that the corporation may consider the plaintiff’s entitlement under the redevelopment scheme for rehabilitation. The appeal has been heard on various occasions, however, till date, the learned counsel for the corporation has not received any positive instructions on the suggestion made on behalf of the appellant. The only reason for the lack of instructions for considering the rehabilitation of the plaintiff is that the scheme for redevelopment has already been floated; hence, the corporation would not be able to rehabilitate the plaintiff.

3. Considering the manner in which the hearing of the appeal has proceeded, I find it necessary to record that time was granted to the learned counsel for the corporation to take appropriate instructions from the concerned officers who are authorised to decide on the plaintiff’s entitlement. On 25^th March 2025, the learned counsel for the corporation requested time to take instructions from Mr. Mahesh Patil, Assistant Commissioner and Mr. Prithviraj Chavan, Assistant Commissioner (Estate), with a submission that the officers shall remain present on the next date to enable the learned counsel for the corporation to respond to the suggestion made on behalf of the appellant as recorded in the earlier order dated 14^th February 2025. Unfortunately, the officers have never remained present before the court. Learned counsel for the corporation submits that today Mr. Mahesh Patil, Assistant Commissioner, is present and is authorized to take decision regarding the rehabilitation of the plaintiff. However, he submits that the plaintiff cannot be rehabilitated at this stage. It is important to record that admittedly, the demolition work has been carried out on the instructions of Mr. Mahesh Patil, Assistant Commissioner. Since there is no positive response from the corporation regarding the rehabilitation of the plaintiff, the arguments on the merits of the appeal are concluded today.

4. The appeal is preferred to challenge the refusal of the plaintiff’s various prayers in the notice of motion, mainly the prayer for the reconstruction of the plaintiff’s structure, which the corporation’s officers demolished without any notice of demolition. The relevant facts leading to the reason for filing the suit and the notice of motion are as follows :

(a) The plaintiff is held entitled to a permanent rehab component as per Annexure-II dated 14^th November 2008 for a commercial area of 538 sq.ft.

(b) The plaintiff’s entitlement to a permanent rehabilitation structure for the area, as reflected in Annexure II, is undisputed.

(c) The plaintiff had raised a dispute regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to an area and claimed that the plaintiff would be entitled to a larger area.

(d) In view of the application filed by the plaintiff, measurement was carried out on the site with reference to the assessment extract,