Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
M/s. Afsana Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Municipal Commissioner and Others – Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 550 of 2025, Appeal From Order (ST) No. 34291 of 2025
Decided On : 11-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court proceedings initiated regarding multiple appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of appellants and their respective structures. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. challenges to section 351 notice regarding unauthorized structures. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. analysis of evidence presented by appellants. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's previous orders affecting the current case. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 6. court rejects claims based on falsehood and lack of standing. (Para 21 , 23) |
| 7. reaffirmation of need for legitimate claims in court. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. dismissal of appeals and imposition of costs. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. final ruling and implications for further appeals. (Para 30 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate for Appellants, Mr. Purohit, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Intervenor - Developer and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for MCGM.
2. This is a group of 5 Appeal from Orders which are having identical facts. By consent all 5 Appeal from Orders are heard finally and decided by the following judgement and order. On behalf of the 5 Appellants I have heard Mr. Pandey learned advocate at length and with his assistance perused the record. In all 5 matters challenge is maintained to the Section 351 notice dated 15.04.202 issued by Corporation, order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the designated officer and ad interim order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned City Civil Court in separate Suit proceedings instituted by the 5 Appellants.
3. First Appellant before me is Afsana Enterprises claiming to be occupant of Structure No. 13. Appeal from Order No.550 of 2025 along with Interim Application No. 12563 of 2025 is filed by this Appellant.
4. Second Appellant before me is Shafitullah Chaudhary claiming to be occupant of Structure No. 60. Appeal from Order (St.) No.34302 of 2025 and Interim Application (St.) 34303 of 2025 is filed by this Appellant.
5. Third Appellant before me is Hasmat Ali Mohammed Ali Khan claiming to be occupant of Structure no. 54. Appeal from Order No.34300 of 2025 and Interim Application (St.) No. 34301 of 2025 is filed by this Appellant.
6. Fourth Appellant before me is Mohammed Hanif Gareeb Khan claiming to be occupant of Structure No. 57. Appeal from Order (St.) No.34291 of 2025 and Interim Application (St.) No. 34293 of 2025 is filed by this Appellant.
7. Fifth Appellant before me is Nagendra Singh claiming to be occupant of Structure Nos. 26 and 27. Appeal from Order (St.) No.34297 of 2025 and Interim Application (St.) No. 34298 of 2025 is filed by this Appellant.
8. In addition to the above, Five (5) Intervention Applications are filed by Intervenor – Developer i.e. M/s Royal Developers in the respective Appeal from Orders which are as follows:-
(i) Intervention Application (St.) No.35457 of 2025 is filed in Appeal from Order No.550 of 2025;
(ii) Intervention Application (St.) No.35453 of 2025 is filed in Appeal from Order (St.) No.34291 of 2025;
(iii) Intervention Application (St.) No.35459 of 2025 is filed in Appeal from Order (St.) No.34297 of 2025;
(iv) Intervention Application (St.) No.35456 of 2025 is filed in Appeal from Order (St.) No.34300 of 2025
(v) Intervention Application (St.) No.35455 of 2025 is filed in Appeal from Order (St.) No.34302 of 2025.
9. These five (5) Intervention Applications are taken up for hearing by consent of parties and are hereby allowed and disposed alongwith this common judgment. The Intervention of the Developer, since he is an affected party stands allowed. Developer is also heard while disposing of these 5 Appeals.
10. Amendment to Appeal from Orders for impleading the Developer is permitted to be carried out by the Advocate for Appellants forthwith. Necessary amendment is permitted to be carried out by the Advocate for Appellants in the Registry. Registry shall allow the same. Re-verification stands dispensed with.
11. All facts and circumstances in respect of the 5 Appellants before me are
The court affirmed that unauthorized structures on custodia legis land cannot be legitimized without substantial evidence, and frivolous legal challenges obstruct legitimate justice.
Appellants lack legal standing for injunction against demolition as they suppressed prior litigation and proved non-entitlement to the unauthorized structures.
The court affirmed that long-standing residential occupancy rights must be respected and that statutory notices claiming unauthorized structures must be substantiated with clear and compelling eviden....
The court emphasized the necessity of prima facie evidence for lawful occupancy and the burden of proof regarding unauthorized structures, which varies based on specific case facts.
Municipal officers have a duty to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, as per the provisions of the law and government directives.
The duty of municipal officers to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, and the need for a well-considered approach by the Civil Court in dealing with applications for temporary in....
Suit against municipal body challenging demolition notice requires proven pre-suit notice under Section 527 MMC Act; mere plaint averment insufficient against specific denial, no waiver without expli....
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
