Shivbhuvan Dayashankar Sharma v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2026.03.11 19:46:57 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2897 OF 2025 Shivbhuvan Dayashankar Sharma ... Petitioner

Versus

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors.

.... Respondents **** Mr. Dhanraj Lodha, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jagdish N. Jayale, for the Respondents No. 3 to 6. Ms. Poornima Kantharia a/w Mr.S.V. Tondwalkar, for RespondentBMC. Mr. Rambhau B. Kaute, Sr. Colony Officer (W/S.) H/W Ward. **** CORAM :

M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATE :

11th MARCH 2026 P.C. :

1.

Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation has taken action in March 2025 against the subject structure which the petitioner says is unauthorised and the said structure in question was demolished to the extent of first floor. The ground floor was not demolished.

2.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents no. 3 to 6 carried out illegal unauthorised construction and are occupying the entire structure. Since the Corporation is satisfied that the structure is unauthorised, undoubtedly, appropriate action has to be taken to demolish the said unauthorised structure in accordance with law. Ms.Kantharia submits that necessary action will be taken against the said unauthorised structure, however, it is noticed that the respondents no. 3 to 6 have approached the Additional Collector by filing the proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ('Slum Act', for short) and vide order dated 13/03/2025, after considering the documents on record, stay has been granted on the notice issued under the Slum Act. In such view of the matter and on account of this legal impediment, the Corporation is unable to proceed further with the demolition.

3.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 6 that though the land belongs to the Corporation, the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is also being implemented on the portion of the land over which the subject structure stands.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would file an appropriate intervention application in the appeal before the Appellate Authority being the landlord of the subject structure. Respondents No. 3 to 6 dispute the fact that the petitioner is the landlord. We are not expressing any opinion since it is not possible for us to decide the disputed question in the writ petition. 5.

Since the Corporation has already taken a stand that it shall proceed to demolish the subject structure if there are no legal impediments, the petition is disposed of in view of such stand. 6.

It is open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act for appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority is requested to decide the application if preferred by the petitioner expeditiously and decide the appeal as early as possible. The Corporation to proceed with the action of demolition if there is no legal impediment. (S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)