Thursday 2 September 2021

Important Judgments on Municipal Corporation(Part 1)


1) Whether Municipal corporation is obliged to follow due process of law prior to demolition of unauthorised construction?

Mere issuance of notice under the said section is not sufficient to suggest that the due process of law has been followed, inasmuch as after issuance of notice, the concerned person would file response and which response has to be considered by appropriate officer designated for that purpose and that officer is obliged to pass decision, one way or the other. Moreover, such a decision has to be communicated to the affected person giving reasonable opportunity to that person to challenge that decision as permissible by law. There is nothing on record to show that such a course has been followed. Unless such a course was followed, it is not possible to conclude that due process of law has been complied with. If the record placed before the Court suggests that due process of law has not been complied with, then, obviously, the application as preferred by the petitioner deserves to be considered and appropriate orders passed thereon. However, as observed earlier, the Court below has rejected the application on the solitary ground, which is unacceptable for the reasons indicated above.

Bombay High Court
Mangesh Amar Ghorpade vs Kalyan Dombivali Municipal ... on 2 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2005 (3) BomCR 483

Khanwilkar A.M., J.

Supreme Court guidelines on demolition of unauthorized construction by Municipal Corporation


Civil Appeal Nos. 7627 and 7626 of 2019

Decided On: 24.10.2019

 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai  Vs.  Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 5435, 2020 (1) ALLMR (SC) 967,  MANU/SC/1467/2019


Writ Petns. Nos. 4765 to 4767 of 1995 and A.O. No. 477 of 1994

Decided On: 09.02.1996

Sopan Maruti Thopte Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.B. Shah, CJ. and A.V. Savant, J.

Citation: AIR 1996 Bom 304

4) When High court should not issue a mandamus for the demolition of the unauthorized construction?

 At the time of admission of this special leave petition, the provision of Section 351 of the Act was pointed out by the learned senior counsel to show that the Municipal Commissioner had only been conferred the power under the said provisions to demolish or not to demolish unauthorized structure and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have issued a mandamus for demolition of the temple before any order was passed by the Commissioner on the question of demolition.

Supreme Court of India
Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. ... vs Arun Nathuram Gaikwad & Ors on 11 October, 2006
Author: . A Lakshmanan
Citation: AIR2007(SC) 38: 2006(8) SCC590

5) Guidelines of bombay high court for demolition of dangerous building

l) The rights of the tenants and/or occupiers and/or owners in respect of the said premises/property will not be affected by virtue of evacuation or demolition carried out by the Corporation of such dilapidated and dangerous building in exercise of the power under section 354 of the said Act or by virtue of the fact that the Corporation is the owner of the premises. Such tenant and/or occupier and/or owner will be entitled to re-occupy the premises in respect of the same area after the reconstruction of the building, subject to the prevalent provisions of law pertaining to redevelopment of the property or subject to any arrangement or agreement arrived at by and between such tenants and/or occupiers with the owner of the building. Any action of evacuation/removal/demolition will not affect the inter se rights of owners if there be more than one owner or there is a dispute as to the title of the property.

Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014

Decided On: 23.06.2014

 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anoop V. Mohta and A.A. Sayed, JJ.

6)  Whether court should grant status quo order to demolition notice issued by municipal corporation?

The second aspect is the trend of making an order directing
parties to ‘maintain the status quo’. This is effectively what is sought
even in this writ petition when the petitioners seek from us a writ
commanding the restoration of power and water supply and a
restraint against the forced demolition of the structure. In the case

of a building subjected to a Section 354 notice we do not even
pretend to understand what, if anything, an order of ‘status quo’
(whatever the wording) is supposed to mean. Is it that the building
should continue to degrade and become more ruinous? 

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1755 OF 2019

 Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah Vs  Municipal Corporation of
Greater bombay

CORAM : S. C. Dharmadhikari & G.S.Patel, JJ.

DATED : 24TH JUNE 2019

7) When court should permit demolition of dilapidated building?

 In the facts we are not convinced to call for another report from IIT as suggested by the petitioners. From the record placed before us and looking to the condition of the building, we find that it is a very old dilapidated structure, it is dangerous for human habitation. In case of collapse of the structure, it is very likely that there could be loss of life and property. In the process, third parties, neighbourers, passers-by are also likely to get injured and suffer loss of life and property. Taking into consideration not only the structural audit reports but overall condition of the building, the decision was taken and thereafter the impugned notice was issued by the Corporation.


Writ Petition Lodging Nos. 3002, 3011 and 2934 of 2016

Decided On: 10.03.2017

 Jayant Sunderdas Karia and Ors. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.H. Patil and M.S. Karnik, JJ.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 657
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment