Unauthorized constructions without requisite approvals cannot be protected, emphasizing municipal authority's duty to ensure compliance with building regulations for public safety.

1. As all these Appeals raise common questions of law and facts, they are being decided by this common Judgment.

2. They pertain to the structures situate in the precincts of 'Raghuvanshi Mill', Parel, Mumbai and are arising out of the common order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, thereby dismissing various Notices of Motions taken out by the Appellants herein, seeking the relief of interim injunction, restraining the Respondent-Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance of the notice and the order passed under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act , 1888.

3. It is common ground between the parties that within the compound of 'Raghuvanshi Mill', there are several buildings and structures, which were, at one point of time, used for the ancillary purpose of the 'Cotton Textile Mill'. However, during the course of the time, since last about more than 25 years, 'Raghuvanshi Mill' has been closed down and reached to the stage of liquidation. In order to over- come the said liquidation, 'Raghuvanshi Mill Limited' had proposed a 'Revival Plan' before the 'Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction', (for short, the “BIFR”), which came to be accepted by the Appellate Authority of the 'Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction'. In pursuance of it, the permission was given to sell these various buildings and structures situate in the compound of the 'Raghuvanshi Mill' to re-pay the debt of the Mill Workers. Accordingly, the Appellants in this case had purchased different parts of the buildings and structures in the compound of 'Raghuvanshi Mill' by virtue of registered 'Sale Deeds' in or about the year 2003-2004 and since then, they are using the same for commercial purposes and are running their respective businesses therein.

4. According to the Appellants, they are having all the necessary permissions / licenses, including the 'Shop and Establishment Certificate', issued by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation for conducting the businesses. Their structures are also assessed for the purpose of property tax since 1st April 1961, i.e. prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962. Thus, their structures are in existence since long and they are in authorized and lawful possession thereof. It is submitted that, against some of the Appellants, Respondent-Municipal Corporation has earlier, in the year 2013, issued notices under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act , 1888, (for short, “the MMC Act”), alleging unauthorized additions and alterations to the existing structures. The Appellants, to whom the notices had been issued, have challenged those notices by filing Suits in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, and sought the relief of injunction, restraining the Respondent-Municipal Corporation from acting on those notices. Some of those Suits are withdrawn and some are decreed. Those decrees are yet not set aside.

5. In this factual backdrop, the notices impugned in this case came to be issued by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation against the Appellants, under Section 351 of the MMC Act, on 23rd April 2018, calling upon them to show cause as to why an action should not be taken against them for carrying out unauthorized construction of the suit structures and for change of the user. The Appellants gave reply to those notices and produced various documents in support of their contention that, their structures are authorized and in existence since prior to the datum line. The Appellants were also given an opportunity of hearing before the Designated Officer/Assista