SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1548

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SMT. REKHA PRAVIN NALAVADE – Appellant
Versus
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS. – Respondent
FA 1307 / 2018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2018.

1. Rekha Pravin Nalavade ]

Adult Age- 49 Years. Mumbai Inhabitant, ] carrying on Business in the name and ] style of M/s. Sneh Enterprises having ] ofoce at Shop No. HE/HC/61A- ] 19KHHE00471/1295271, M.H.B. Colony, ]

TALLE Near Building No. 1, Ram Mandir Road, ]

SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Kher Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 ]

Digitally signed by 051. ] … Appellant.

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.04.02 14:38:31 +0530 Versus

1. The Municipal Commissioner of Greater ]

Mumbai, a Corporation duly ] incorporated Under the Bombay ] Corporation Act, 1888 Having its Head ]

Ofoce at Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001

2. Maharashtra Housing & Area ]

Development Authority Having ofoce at ] Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra ] (East), Mumbai – 400 051 ]

3. Khernagar Shriram C.H.S. Ltd., Through ]

its Hon. Chairman, Shri Jaiprakash ] Mamchand Bagoria, Khernagar Shriram ] C. H. S. Ltd. Building No. 1, M.H.B. Colony, ] Khernagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 ]

051. ] ...Respondents.

——————

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat, Ms. Pratibha Shelke i/b Mr. Shyam Singh for Appellant.

Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Pallavi Khale for Respondent No.1-

Corporation.

Mr. Akshay Shinde for Respondent No.2-MHADA.

Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Virendra Neve for Respondent No.3.

——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Reserved on: January 17, 2025.

Pronounced on : April 2, 2025.

JUDGMENT :

1. The First Appeal is at the instance of the Original Plainti challenging the Judgment dated 26th September, 2018 passed by the City Civil Court in Long Cause Suit No. 3233 of 2013 dismissing the suit.

PLEADINGS:

2. L. C. Suit No. 3233 of 2013 challenged the Section 314 notice issued by Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“the MMC Act”) and the impugned order of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner passed therein and for permanent injunction. The suit premises is described as Shop Number HE/HC/61A- 19KHHE00471/1295271, situated at M.H.B. Colony, Near building no. 1, Ram Mandir Road, Kher Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 admeasuring 10ft x 15ft and constructed of brick masonary walls and A.C. Sheet roof. The case of the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff’s father was in occupation of the suit premises since 1976 and the structure was censused at census number HE/HC/61A and hut occupiers card was issued in his name. The Plaintiff’s by general power of attorney dated 2nd April, 1993, the Plaintiff’s father relinquished his right, title and interest in suit structure in Plaintiff’s favour and she is carrying on business in name of M/s Sneh Enterprises. By communication dated 8th December, 1993 the Plaintiff requested the Tehsildar to transfer the record of the suit shop in her name. In the year 2000, the premises was censused in the name of the Plaintiff and census receipt was issued. On 2nd August, 2005, the Plaintiff received notice from MHADA calling upon her to pay compensation to the Senior Colony Ofocer which was paid regularly and receipts were issued by the concerned department.

3. On 30th May, 2012 notice came to be issued under Section 314 of MMC Act alleging that the suit premises is on the road, which was responded by producing all requisite documents on 11th June, 2012. Due to threats of demolition in month of March, 2013, Plaintiff filed L.C Suit No 1090 of 2013 for injunction. The hearing on the impugned notice took place on 7th June, 2013 before the Assistant Commissioner H- East Ward and order was passed on 24th June, 2013 directing the Plaintiff to remove the suit premises which is not speaking order, hence the suit came to be filed.

4. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Kher Nagar Shriram CHS Limited were arrayed as Defendants to the suit. As far as the MCGM is concerned, the written statement was filed contending that the Corporation had undertaken the work o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top