Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, J.
Preeti Manohar Sakpal D/o Manohar Baburao Sakpal (deceased) - Appellant
Vs.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - Respondent
Contempt Petition No.330 of 2025 In Appeal From Order No.874 of 2024 With Appeal From Order No.874 of 2024 With Interim Application No.15379 of 2024
Decided On : 10-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek L. Tripathi a/w. Adv. Bharat Tiwari
For the Respondent:Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. S.B. Vajale i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi for the Respondent-BMC., Dr. Dhruti Kapadia a/w. Adv. Kavita Dhanuka

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.

Headnote:(A) Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 3(w), 3(x), 314 - Unauthorized structure on public street including footpath - Commissioner may remove without notice any booth or structure erected contrary to provisions - Applies to encroachments on public places acquired for public purpose - Long possession over decades, electricity bills, tax payments, shop establishment certificate do not prove prior existence to datum line or lawful authority - Unregistered agreement for open space on public land inadmissible to establish title, right or interest - No equity for wrongdoer on public land. (Paras 15-28)

(B) Litigation - Doctrine of clean hands - Litigant suppressing facts, misrepresenting or abusing process denied equitable relief including injunction - Prolonged retention of unauthorized structure via delays encourages illegality - Payment of user charges or licences creates no title. (Paras 16-21, 26)

(C) Property Tax Assessment - Does not alter unauthorized character of structure or amount to regularization - Municipal corporation entitled to assess both authorized and unauthorized structures. (Paras 26)

(D) Contempt of Court - Partial demolition despite interim stay during larger drive on street - Inadvertent, stopped upon notice of order, portion reconstructed - Unconditional apology and restorative action suffice to purge contempt, closed with stern warning against future violations. (Paras 31-33) (E) Municipal Accountability - Prolonged inaction allowing unauthorized structure behind official post - Commissioner to inquire, fix responsibility and take action against erring officers. (Paras 34-35)

Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged trial court dismissal of interim injunction against demolition notice issued for structure claimed via 1986 unregistered agreement for open space, supported by electricity transfer, tax payments, shop certificate. Structure on footpath obstructing traffic, not pre-datum line. Partial demolition occurred despite later stay during drive removing multiple stalls; reconstructed smaller. Appeal from order dismissing motion, with contempt petition alleging breach.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order upheld; appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to specified fund; interim relief vacated; contempt dismissed; communication to commissioner for inquiry.

Issues: Entitlement to injunction against demolition under section 314 for alleged permanent structure with long possession; validity of notice lacking details; purging of contempt via reconstruction; impact of ancillary documents on legitimacy.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorized encroachments on streets as public places removable summarily under section 314; ancillary documents confer no title or regularization; courts refuse aid to those with unclean hands or abusing process; contempt purged by apology and restoration where not intentional.

Result: Appeal dismissed; Contempt Petition dismissed; Trial Court order upheld.

Table of Content
1. appeal from denial of anti-demolition interim injunction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. permanent structure predates datum; s.314 notice invalid. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. bmc violated stay order via partial demolition. (Para 7 , 8)
4. unauthorized encroachment on municipal footpath and street. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. inadvertent demolition reconstructed; contempt purged. (Para 12 , 13)
6. prolonged unauthorized possession encourages illegality. (Para 14 , 15)
7. unregistered agreement, bills confer no title. (Para 16 , 17)
8. unclean hands deny equitable relief to encroachers. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
9. s.314 allows summary removal of street encroachments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
10. tax assessment does not regularize unauthorized structures. (Para 26)
11. notice valid for traffic obstruction removal. (Para 27 , 28)
12. civil suit barred sans statutory remedy exhaustion. (Para 29 , 30)
13. contempt misuse delays merits adjudication. (Para 31)
14. apology and restoration purge contempt. (Para 32 , 33)
15. inquiry into municipal dereliction on encroachments. (Para 34 , 35)
16. appeal dismissed; costs; contempt warning. (Para 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT:

KAMAL KHATA, J.

1) By the present Appeal, the Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned Order dated 7^th May 2024 passed by City Civil Court, Dindoshi, in Notice of Motion No.2767 of 2019 in L.C. Suit No.1879 of 2019, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the said Notice of Motion.

2) The Notice of Motion taken out by the Appellant-Plaintiff sought an interim order to restrain the Defendant – Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (‘BMC’) from demolishing the Suit structure or any part thereof situated on M.G. road, Near Tilak Nagar Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054.

FACTS & RIVAL SUBMISSIONS

3) Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate for the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant’s father had acquired the premises from one Shri Pandurang Gawade under an agreement dated 12^th September 1986 for a sum of Rs.95,000/-. He submitted that in 1987, an application was made for transfer of electricity meter in Appellant’s name. He further submitted that the Additional Tahsildar had issued a Notice dated 3^rd February 2012 under Section 45 of the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966 (‘MRTP Act’), which according to him establishes that the Suit premises was in existence prior to the datum line. He contended that the Notice under Section 314 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act , 1888 (‘BMC Act’) could not have been issued to the Appellant, as the Appellant has been in uninterrupted use and occupation of the Suit premises several decades.

4) He submitted that the Notice dated 30^th July 2019 is ordinarily issued in respect of hawkers’ stalls and is therefore unsustainable in law. He further submitted that the Appellant has been paying applicable taxes. He contended that the Trial Court erred in holding that the Appellant failed to establish that the land on which the structure stands is non-agricultural land. He submitted that the Trial Court ignored the order dated 5^th March 2002, which according to him substantiates that the Suit structure is permanent structure. He further submitted that the electricity bills on record demonstrate the existence of the Suit premises for over 40 years. He contended that the the Trial Court has erroneously treated the suit premises as unauthorized and has mixed up the reference to open space in the agreement with the structure of the shop admeasuring 40 x 10 feet. He further submitted that the BMC has also issued a shop and establishment certificate for running the business of video games. According to him, in view of the documentary evidence including electricity bills, payment of the non-agricultural tax, and the agreement of dated 1986, the Appellant was entitled to an order of injunction.

5) He further submitted that the impugned notice has been issued under the guise of road widening, whereas in fact the Suit premises is neither situated on the road nor abutting any nala

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 384

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.

Cases Referred (3)

Related Judgments

Preeti Manohar Sakpal D/o Manohar Baburao Sakpal (deceased) vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - 2026 Supreme(Bom) 384

Mohammed Iqbal VS Municipal Corporation Of Greated Mumbai

Mohammed Iqbal Abdul VS Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 921

Shantilal Chhogalalji Doshi VS Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 745

Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3604

Abdul W. Ismail(since deceased) through proposed legal heirs vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai - 2026 Supreme(Bom) 188

Maqsood Ahmed Jamaluddin Khan VS Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai Thr. Assistance Commissioner D-Ward - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 2

Diwakar Ratan Thakur vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 444

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai VS Rajendra Phulchand Gupta - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 40

Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole alias Pardeshi Baba Trust vs New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade