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) 249409

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV
HYDER RAZA SHABIR HASAN – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI – Respondent
AOST/40729/2025



##PAGE1##

P13.AOST.40729.2025.doc

HARSH ADA H. SAWANT

(P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.40729 OF 2025

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.40730 OF 2025

Hyder Raza Shabir Hasan .. Appellant

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondent

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

 Mr. V. T. Dubey, Advocate for Appellant.

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

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2025

P.C . :

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

23.12.2025. Perused the praecipe.

2. Heard Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for Appellant.

3. This Appeal from Order assails order dated 08.12.2025

passed in Notice of Motion No.5080 of 2025 by the learned Trial Court

which is appended at page No.86 of the Appeal from Order in respect

of suit structure belonging to the Appellant – Plaintiff on the premise

that suit structure is not a tolerated structure proving its existence as

on or prior to the datum line.

4. When the impugned notice was issued to the Plaintiff he

submitted a detailed reply thereto with documentary evidence on

11.07.2025. He was duly heard on 01.08.2025 by the Designated

1 of 3

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 08:57:00 :::

##PAGE2##

P13.AOST.40729.2025.doc

Officer of the Corporation and speaking order dated 19.08.2025 was

passed. While noting the 10 instances of documentary evidence

produced by the Plaintiff, the Designated Officer concluded that notice

structure was not a tolerated structure being in existence from

01.04.1962 and therefore was unauthorised and called upon Plaintiff

to remove the same.

5. In defence of the Plaintiff’s case Mr. Dubey has drawn my

attention to the impugned order and consideration accorded by

Municipal Corporation to the documentary evidence appended to the

reply filed by Plaintiff to the show-cause notice.

6. Perusal of the speaking order prima facie shows that the

Designated Officer has verified the documents after receiving remarks

from the concerned Assistant Engineer i.e. appropriate Authority of ‘L’

Ward with regard to the first date of assessment of the suit structure

and has stated that suit structure was first assessed on 01.04.1977.

The documentary evidence of the tax paid by the Plaintiff certifying

this date is appended to the Appeal from Order.

7. Once the record of Corporation, inter alia, justifies the

existence of the suit structure as on 01.04.1977 having been assessed

to tax, the conclusion reached by Corporation that it is unauthorised

structure being not in existence on the datum line cannot be accepted

at face value. If Corporation desires to take steps for removal of

2 of 3

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2026 08:57:00 :::

##PAGE3##

P13.AOST.40729.2025.doc

structure in the year 2025 as unauthorised, there was no reason for

Corporation to tolerate its existence and subsistence since 1977. What

is significant is that verification of the document and remark received

from the concerned appropriate Authority justify the subsistence and

existence of the structure since 1977 prima facie.

8. On the basis of the above, an arguable case is clearly made

out by Mr. Dubey for grant of relief to the Plaintiff in the Appeal from

Order.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.12.2025

shall stand stayed forthwith. Corporation is directed not to take any

steps against Plaintiff’s notice structure until the present Appeal from

Order is determined by this Court.

10. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondent.

11. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Appellant

is directed to serve the Respondent a copy of this order and copy of

Appeal from Order and Interim Application and inform about the next

date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate

affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof.

12. Stand over to 09th February, 2026.

13. Praecipe is disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

H. H. SAWANT

3 of 3

Digitally signed

by HARSHADA

HARSHADA HANUMANT

HANUMANT SAWANT

SAWANT Date:

2025.12.23

17:21:27 +05

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