2025:BHC-AS:50028 HARSH ADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.36918 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.36919 OF 2025 Mohammed Amir Shaikh .. Appellant Versus The Assistant Municipal Commissioner Respondent ....................

 Mr. Aniesh S. Jadhav a/w. Mr. Shafi Ahmed Shaikh, Advocates for Appellant.

 Ms. Neeta Jadhav, Advocate i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent.

 Mr. Suhas Jadhav, Sub-Engineer Road Department, M/East Ward present.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2025 P.C . :

1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated

20.11.2025. Perused the praecipe.

2. Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for Appellant and Ms.

Jadhav, learned Advocate for Respondent.

3. The contours of proceedings are only dependent on facts in the matter. The Appellant who is Plaintiff before the Trial Court has filed the present Appeal from Order seeking urgent intervention in view of the order dated 15.11.2025 passed in Suit No.2706 of 2025 refusing ad-interim relief to Plaintiff.

4. Suit is filed to challenge the demolition and eviction notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short ‘the said Act’) by the Corporation which is dated 20.02.2025. Pursuant thereto an identical and similar notice under Section 314 of the said Act was issued on 09.10.2025 and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

5. The grievance of Appellant – Plaintiff is that despite issuing the twin notices, no hearing has been accorded to Plaintiff by Corporation.

6. Ms. Jadhav would submit that notice dated 09.10.2025 has been issued after duly considering the documents provided by Plaintiff. 7. When question is put to Ms. Jadhav as to whether hearing was accorded, she has no answer thereto. That is the precise reason as to why Plaintiff is before me.

8. Ms. Jadhav informs the Court that subject land on which Plaintiff’s structure is standing is required for road widening and therefore the impugned action has been initiated.

9. Perusal of record reveals that there is a precursor order passed by Assistant Commissioner of Corporation as far back as in 2006, on the basis of a direction given by City Civil Court in the previous round of litigation that status of land on which structure is standing will have to be verified as to whether it is private land or Government land.

10. Mr. Jadhav informs the Court that said verification was never completed thereafter and proceedings were dropped.

11. Principles of natural justice is what is required to be followed by the statutory Authorities before taking any drastic action of demolition as contemplated under the provisions of Section 314 of the said Act.

12. The Officer – Mr. Suhas Jadhav of Respondent is present in the Court and has given instructions to Ms. Jadhav, Advocate for the Corporation. He is ready and willing to give a hearing to the Appellant – Plaintiff within a period of one week from today. Appellant – Plaintiff shall appear before Officer on 27.11.2025 at 12: 00 Noon sharp before the Assistant Engineer, Maintenance Department, M /

East Ward for the hearing.

13. Appellant – Plaintiff shall carry all his documentary evidence and ensure that those documents are submitted by him once again and he can make his submissions thereon and the concerned Authority shall hear him.

14. After hearing the Appellant – Plaintiff, the concerned statutory Officer shall pass a reasoned speaking order on or before

04.12.2025 thereafter.

15. In the case if order passed after hearing is adverse to the Appellant – Plaintiff, it shall be held in abeyance for a period of one week to enable the Appellant – Plaintiff to take recourse available to him in accordance with law.

16. Needless to state that Respondent shall follow the due process of law thereafter in taking any action against Appellant –

Plaintiff.

17. Mr. Jadhav undertakes to withdraw the Suit in the City Civil and Sessions Court which i