caselaws

Supreme Court of India
Municipal Corporation Of Greater … vs M/S Sunbeam High Tech Developers … on 24 October, 2019Author: Deepak Gupta

Bench: Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7627 OF 2019

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

M/S SUNBEAM HIGH TECH
DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7626 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

The issue involved in these appeals is whether if a

municipal corporation demolishes a structure in exercise of

powers vested in it but in violation of the procedure prescribed,
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

can the High Court direct the ‘owner/occupier’ of the building to
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2019.10.24
14:15:42 IST
Reason:

reconstruct the demolished structure?
2

2. The municipal corporations in the State of Maharashtra like

in any other part of the country are vested with the power to

demolish structures which violate the laws and have been built

without any building plans or in violation of the laws. The

exercise of the power of demolition which affects the property of

the citizens of this country must be exercised in an absolutely

fair and transparent manner. Rules in this regard must be

followed. At the same time, the Court has to balance the private

interest with the larger public interest. Cities and towns must be

well planned and illegal structures must be demolished. Rule of

law comprises not only of the principles of natural justice but

also provides that the procedure prescribed by law must be

followed. Rule of law also envisages that illegal constructions

which are constructed in violation of law must be demolished and

there can be no sympathy towards those who violate law.

3. Before we refer to the statutory provisions, we may make

reference to a judgment of the Bombay High Court which appears

to be the locus classicus on this subject, as far as the Bombay

High Court is concerned. In Sopan Maruti Thopte and

Another vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Another1, the
1AIR 1996 Bom 304
3

Bombay High Court referred to various provisions of law, and

thereafter issued the following directions :­

“19. Hence, on the basis of the law as discussed above, it is
directed that after 1st May, 1996 the Bombay Municipal
Corporation or the Municipal Corporations constituted under
the B.P.M.C. Act would follow the following procedure before
taking action under Section 351 of the B.M.C. Act or under S.
260 of the B.P.M.C. Act.

(i) In every case where a notice under Section 351 of the
B.M.C. Act/under Sec. 260 of B.P.M.C. Act is issued to a
party 15 days’ time shall be given for submitting the
reply. In case the party to whom notice is issued sends
the reply with the documents, and shows cause, the
Municipal Commissioner or Deputy Municipal
Commissioner shall consider the reply and if no
sufficient cause is shown, give short reasons for not
accepting the contention of the affected party.
(ii) It would be open to the Commissioner to demolish the
offending structure 15 days after the order of the
Commissioner/Deputy Municipal Commissioner is
communicated to the affected person.
(iii) In case the staff of the Corporation detects the building
which is in the process of being constructed and/or
reconstructed and/or extended without valid permission
from the Corporation, it would be open to the
Commissioner to demolish the same by giving a short
notice of 24 hours after drawing a panchanama at the
site and also by taking photographs of such structure
and/or extension. The photographs should indicate the
date when the same were taken.
(iv) In case where the Municipal Corporation has followed
due process of law and demolished the unauthorised
structure and/or extension, if the same is reconstructed
without valid permission within a period of one year, it
would also be open to the Corporation to demolish the
same by giving a short notice of 24 hours.
(v) If the offending structure and/or extension which is
assessed by the Corporation for two years, notice shall
provide for 15 days’ time to show cause. If the Deputy
Municipal Commissioner comes to the conclusion that
he requires assistance of the party, he may give an oral
hearing if he deems fit and proper before passing the
order. It is made clear that oral hearing is not at all
compulsory but it is at the discretion of the authority.
(vi) In any other case the Corporation is directed to issue a
show cause notice in case of any structure and/or
extension other than those mentioned in clauses (i) to
4

(iv) above. The Corporation shall provide for 7 days’ time
to show cause in such a case.

20. In case the notice is issued under Sec. 478 of the B.P.M.C.
Act, 1949 and if the person has not complied with the
requisitions of the Commissioner, then it would be open to the
Commissioner to demolish the unauthorised structure after
expiry of 30 days of the period specified in the notice for
removal of such construction.
21. The Municipal Corporations in the State of Maharashtra
would follow the above directions so as to avoid unnecessary
litigation.”

After issuing these directions the Court also issued a word of

caution to courts not to grant interim injunctions protecting

illegal constructions from demolition. We may refer to the

following observations:­
“24. In our view, passing interim orders indiscriminately
and without apparent and due application of mind, which
has the effect of allowing the plaintiff to continue to enjoy
the fruits of his illegal actions including unauthorised
construction tends to lower the Court’s prestige and clearly
undermines the Rule of Law.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

28. Considering the aforesaid decisions it should be borne
in mind before issuance of an injunction that it is a
discretionary and an equitable relief. It is not mandatory
that for mere asking such relief should be given. It is not a
charity at the cost of public. However, we make it clear that
the procedure established by law has to be followed by the
public authorities, whether it be the State or a local body,
including the Municipal Corporations. At the same time,
the procedural lapses, unintentional or intentional, which
do not seriously affect the substantive rights of a person,
ought not to result in ad interim orders which protect
illegality having already been committed by the plaintiff and
to give licence of continuing fruits of such illegality for
years. Violators of law should not liberally be allowed to
take protection of Court of law by obtaining ad interim
injunctions which have the effect of continuing such
violation.”
5

Statutory Provisions

4. The relevant provisions to deal with the issue in hand are

covered under Chapter 12 of The Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act [Bom. III of 1888] (hereinafter referred to as

‘the MMC Act’). Section 337 of the MMC Act provides that

before erecting any building, notice in this behalf has to be

given to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. The

phrase ‘to erect a building’ not only means erecting a new

building but also includes within its ambit re­erection of any

building by demolishing the existing building entirely or

erecting any building by removing the roof of the existing

ground floor structures and adding one or more upper floors

and to complete a dwelling house, originally meant to be used

as one dwelling house into more than one dwelling houses.

Building plans have to be furnished to the Commissioner, in

terms of Section 338.

5. Even with regard to execution of works not amounting to

erection of building notice under Section 342 of the MMC Act

has to be given to the Commissioner. The relevant portion of

the Section reads as follows:­
6

“342. Notice to be given to the Commissioner of intention
to make additions, etc., to or change of user of, a
building.

Every person who shall intend­

(a) to make any addition to a building, or change of existing
user or

(b) to make any alteration or repairs to a building involving
the removal, alteration or re­erection of any part of the
building except tenantable repairs:

Provided that no lowering of plinth, foundation or floor
in a building shall be permitted.

Explanation.­ “Tenantable repairs” in this section shall
mean, only,­

(i) providing guniting to the structural members or
walls;
(ii) plastering, painting, pointing;

(iii) changing floor tiles;

(iv) repairing W. C., bath or washing places;

(v) repairing or replacing drainage pipes, taps,
manholes and other fittings;

(vi) repairing or replacing sanitary water plumbing,
or electrical fittings; and

(vii) replacement of roof with the same material, but
shall not include,­

(a) change in horizontal and vertical existing
dimensions of the structure;

(b) replacement or removal of any structural
members of load bearing walls;

(c) lowering of plinth, foundations or floors;

(d) addition or extension of mezzanine floor
or loft; and

(e) flattening of roof or repairing roof with
different material;

(c) [* * *]
7

(cc) to make any alteration in a building involving­

(i) the sub­division of any room in such
building so as to convert the same into two or
more separate rooms,

(ii) the conversion of any passage or space in
such building into a room or rooms, or

(d) to remove or reconstruct any portion of a
building abutting on a street which stands within the
regular line of such street,

shall give to the Commissioner, in a form obtained for this
purpose under section 344, notice of his said intention,
specifying the position of the building in which such work is
to be executed, the nature and extent of the intended work,
the particular part or parts, if any, of such work which is or
are intended to be used for human habitation and the name
of the person whom he intends to employ to supervise its
execution.”

6. An analysis of this Section clearly indicates that if any

addition is to be made to the building or existing use of the

building is to be changed then notice is required to be given to

the Commissioner before such addition or change is made.

Even for making any alteration or repair to a building which

involves the removal, or alteration of any part of the building,

permission is required except for tenantable repairs which have

been specifically defined in the explanation of this Section. The

proviso lays down that no lowering of plinth, foundation or

floors in the building shall be permitted. Tenantable repairs

have been defined and we need not dwell on what are
8

tenantable repairs for the purpose of deciding these cases. We

would, however, like to emphasise that even in case of repairs

not falling within the category of tenantable repairs, notice will

have to be given to the Commissioner and permission is to be

taken and then only work can be commenced in terms of

Section 347.

7. We are mainly concerned with Section 351 which reads as

follows :­

“351. Proceedings to be taken in respect of buildings or
work commenced contrary to section 347.
(1) The Commissioner shall, by notification in
the Official Gazette, designate an officer of the Corporation
to be the Designated Officer for the purposes of this section
and of sections 352, 352A and 354A. The Designated Officer
shall have jurisdiction over such local area as may be
specified in the notification and different officers may be
designated for different local areas.

(1A) If the erection of any building or the execution
of any such work as is described in section 342, is
commenced contrary to the provisions of section 342 or
347, the Designated Officer, unless he deems it necessary to
take proceedings in respect of such building or work under
section 354, shall­
(a) by written notice, require the person who
is erecting such building or executing such work, or
has erected such building or executed such work, or
who is the owner for the time being of such building
or work, within seven days from the date of service
of such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed
by him or by an agent duly authorized by him in that
behalf and addressed to the Designated Officer, to
show sufficient cause why such building or work
shall not be removed, altered or pulled down; or
(b) shall require the said person on such day
and at such time and place as shall be specified in
such notice to attend personally, or by an agent duly
authorized by him in that behalf, and show sufficient
9

cause why such building or work shall not be
removed, altered or pulled down.
Explanation. ­ “To show sufficient cause” in this sub­
section shall mean to prove that the work mentioned in the
said notice is carried out in accordance with the provisions
of section 337 or 342 and section 347 of the Act.

(2) If such person shall fail to show sufficient
cause, to the satisfaction of the Designated Officer, why
such building or work shall not be removed, altered or
pulled down, the Designated Officer may remove, alter or
pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof
shall be paid by the said person. In case of removal or
pulling down of the building or the work by the Designated
Officer, the debris of such building or work together with
other building material, if any, at the sight of the
construction, belonging to such person, shall be seized and
disposed of in the prescribed manner and after deducting
from the receipts of such sale or disposal, the expenditure
incurred for removal and sale of such debris and material,
the surplus of the receipts shall be returned by
the Designated Officer, to the person concerned.

(3) No court shall stay the proceeding of any
public notice including notice for eviction, demolition or
removal from any land or property belonging to the State
Government or the Corporation or any other local authority
or any land which is required for any public project or civil
amenities, without first giving the Commissioner a
reasonable opportunity of representing in the matter.”

Sub­section (1A) was the original sub­section (1). It appears that

if the erection of any building or the execution of any work is

commenced contrary to the provisions of Section 342 or 347 then

the designated officer shall issue written notice calling upon the

builder, occupier, owner to submit his reply within 7 days from

the service of notice to show cause as to why such a building

should not be demolished. The designated officer can also

require the person to appear before him personally on a time and
10

date fixed by him. The Explanation is important. It lays down

that ‘sufficient cause’ would mean that the work is being carried

out in accordance with the provisions of Sections 337 or 342 and

347 of the MMC Act. This means that required permission before

the construction has to be obtained and if the person, within 7

days, is not able to produce such permission, then the

designated officer can take steps to remove the building. Sub­

section (2) provides that if the noticee does not show cause or the

designated officer is not satisfied with the reply filed, then the

building can be removed or pulled out. Sub­section (3) debars

the jurisdiction of civil courts to stay proceeding of any such

public notice.

8. Dealing with the issues relating to building under

construction and/or reconstruction and/or extension without

valid permission the Bombay High Court in Sopan’s case (supra)

had directed that a short notice of 24 hours be issued after

drawing a panchnama at the site and also by taking photographs

of such structure and/or extension. It was also ordered that the

photographs should indicate the date when the same were taken.

Direction 4 provided that if after demolition the un­authorised
11

structure is re­erected without valid permission within a period of

1 year then also notice of only 24 hours would be required. We

are not directly concerned with directions 5 and 6. In Sopan’s

case (supra), no direction was given that if the offending

structure is demolished illegally the same should be permitted to

be reconstructed. The reconstruction jurisprudence seems to

have developed at a later stage.

9. At this juncture it would be necessary to point out that

when Sopan’s case (supra) was decided there was no provision

fixing a time line for filing a reply to the notice. Now, 7 days have

been fixed to file the reply in terms of Section 351 sub­section

(1A), and, therefore, the first direction in Sopan’s case (supra) is

no longer operative. The Legislature has enacted a provision and

this direction cannot be said to be valid any more.

10. The main dispute is with regard to the 2 nd direction in

Sopan’s case (supra) which provided that demolition of the

building structure can be done only after giving 15 days’ notice to

the affected person.
12

11. Shri Atmaram N. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor

General, appearing for the appellants submits that by making an

amendment to Section 351, providing a period of 7 days for

notice to be given, the first direction in Sopan’s case (supra) is

no longer valid.

12. However, as pointed out by Mr. Bharat Zaveri, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the second

direction in Sopan’s case (supra) requiring 15 days’ notice to be

given to the affected person before demolition of the structure, is

still valid and, therefore, 2 notices are required to be given viz.,(i)

a show cause notice of 7 days in terms of Section 351 (1A) and;

(ii) notice of 15 days in terms of Sopan’s case (supra). The

learned counsel also submits that the judgment in Sopan’s case

(supra) holds the field till date, and we agree with the counsel

that in terms of direction no.2 in Sopan’s case (supra), 15 days’

notice has to be given before demolishing the structure. We are

not oblivious to the fact that Sub­section (2) of Section 351 does

not lay down any timeline in this regard. It was in this context

that when no timelines were laid down either for show cause

notice or for demolition that the Bombay High Court in Sopan’s
13

case (supra), fixed two timelines of 15 days each for issuing show

cause notice and, thereafter, to take action of demolition. The

Legislature intervened and the first period has been curtailed

from 15 days to 7 days but the second direction has not been

interfered with by the Legislature. Therefore, that judgment

continues to hold the field in this regard.

13. Admittedly, in both the cases the second notice does not

comply with the direction given in Sopan’s case (supra).

Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the requirement with

regard to the second notice has not been complied with in either

of the cases. As such, the action of demolition without following

the procedure prescribed by law is illegal.

14. That brings us to the main issue before us. Is the writ court

justified in issuing a direction that since the building has been

demolished without following the procedure prescribed by law,

the petitioners before the High Court (Respondents before us) be

permitted to reconstruct the structure albeit using the same

material, and of the same dimensions, as existed earlier? The

second direction given is that before commencing of work of

reconstruction, the petitioner shall serve a notice to the
14

designated officer. It has further been observed by the High

Court that the reconstruction of the structure on the basis of its

order will confer no authenticity on the structure. The third

important direction of the High Court provides that if the original

structures were constructed without obtaining development

permission, the structures reconstructed pursuant to the orders

of the Court will also be construed to be constructed without

proper development permission. Hence the Corporation can

initiate action of demolition of the structures, after following the

law laid down in Sopan’s case (supra). We have been told that

this is the regular practice followed in the Bombay High Court,

throughout the State of Maharashtra.

15. We are constrained to observe that we cannot approve of

such directions. The High Court itself is aware that some of

these structures may have been constructed without permission.

If that be so, even if the demolition was carried out without giving

the second notice, why should the party who has violated the law

by raising the construction without obtaining permission be

permitted to raise another illegal structure which only has to be

razed to the ground, after following the procedure prescribed by
15

law? Why should the Nation’s wealth be misutilised and misused

for raising an illegal construction which eventually has to be

demolished?

16. We make it clear that we do not approve the action of the

Municipal Corporation or its officials in demolishing the

structures without following the procedure prescribed by law, but

the relief which has to be given must be in accordance with law

and not violative of the law. If a structure is an illegal structure,

even though it has been demolished illegally, such a structure

should not be permitted to come up again. If the Municipal

Corporation violates the procedure while demolishing the

building but the structure is totally illegal, some compensation

can be awarded and, in all cases where such compensation is

awarded the same should invariably be recovered from the

officers who have acted in violation of law. However, we again

reiterate that the illegal structure cannot be permitted to be re­

erected.

17. Assuming that the structure is not illegal then also the

Court will first have to come to a finding that the structure was

constructed legally. It must come to a clear­cut finding as to the
16

dimensions of the structure, what area it was covering and which

part of the plot it was covering. In those cases the High Court,

once it comes to the conclusion that the structure which has

been demolished was not an illegal structure, may be justified in

permitting reconstruction of the structure, but while doing so the

Court must clearly indicate the structure it has permitted to be

constructed; what will be the length of the structure; what will be

its width; what will be its height; which side will the doors and

windows face; how many number of storeys are permitted etc.

We feel that in most cases the writ court may be unable to

answer all these questions. Therefore, it would be prudent to

permit the structure to be built in accordance with the existing

by­laws. Directions can be issued to the authorities to issue

requisite permission for construction of a legal structure within a

time bound period of about 60 days. This may vary from case to

case depending upon the nature of the structure and the area

where it is being built.

18. Blanket orders permitting re­erection will lead to un­

planned and haphazard construction. This will cause problems

to the general public. Even if the rights of private individuals
17

have been violated in as much as sufficient notice for demolition

was not given, in such cases structures erected in violation of the

laws cannot be permitted to be re­erected. We must also

remember that in all these cases, the High Court has not found

that the structures were legal. It has passed the orders only on

the ground that the demolition was carried out without due

notice. As already indicated above, compensation for demolished

structure or even the cost of the new structure to be raised, if

any, can be imposed upon the municipal authorities which

should be recovered from the erring officials, but in no

eventuality should an unplanned structure be permitted to be

raised.

19. Times have changed. Technology has advanced. However,

the legal fraternity continues to live in a state of status quo.

Sopan’s case (supra) was decided on 09.02.1996. More than two

decades have elapsed. The Courts must not be hidebound by old

decisions and the law must develop in accordance with changing

times.

20. All concerned viz., the State, the Municipal authorities and

the High Court need to take note and advantage of advancement
18

in technology. We have been informed that disputes with regard

to the dimensions and nature of the structure arise especially in

those cases where rural or suburban areas are included at a later

stage in the municipalities. Some of these structures have no

sanctioned plans. The Development Control and Promotion

Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034, provide that no

permission shall be required to carry out tenantable repairs to

the existing buildings which were constructed with the approval

of the competent authority, or are in existence since 17.04.1964

in respect of residential structures, and 01.04.1962 in respect of

non­residential structures, as required under Section 342 of the

MMC Act. We have already noted what is meant by tenantable

repairs. This is explained in Section 342 of the MMC Act. Only

repairs envisaged in the explanation are permitted to be carried

out without permission and all other repairs have to be carried

out with permission. Since these old buildings do not have plans

it is difficult to find out whether the construction carried out is

actually tenantable repairs or the structures are being

constructed/reconstructed for which permission is required.
19

21. There is no difficulty to find a solution to this problem if the

State is inclined to do so. Till the State frames any laws in this

regard, we direct that before any construction/reconstruction, or

repair not being a tenantable repair is carried out, the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect, in fact all of them

should be required to furnish a plan of the structure as it exists.

This map can be taken on record and, thereafter, the

construction can be permitted. In such an eventuality even if the

demolition is illegal it will be easy to know what were the

dimensions of the building. This information should not only be

in paper form in the nature of a plan, but should also be in the

form of 3D visual information, in the nature of photographs,

videos etc.

22. All over the country we find that when people raise illegal

constructions it is claimed that the said construction has been

existing for long. The answer is to get Geomapping done. The

relevant technology is Geographic Information System (GIS). If

on Google Maps one can get a road view, we see no reason as to

why this technology cannot be used by the municipal

corporations. At the first stage we direct that all the cities in
20

Maharashtra where the population is 50 lakhs or more the

municipal authorities will get Geomapping done not only of the

municipal areas but also of areas 10 Kms. from the outer

boundary. This can be done by satellite, drones or vehicles.

Once one has the whole city geomapped it would be easy to

control illegal constructions. We further direct the State of

Maharashtra to ensure that sufficient funds are made available

to the municipal corporations concerned and this exercise should

be completed within a period of one year from the date of this

order.

23. We also would like to give further directions regarding the

manner in which the evidence of illegal

construction/reconstruction etc., is collected and notices are

issued and served. We, therefore, issue the following directions:­

(1) It will be obligatory for all Municipal Corporations

in the State of Maharashtra where the population is 50 lakhs

or more to get geomapping and geo­photography of the areas

under their jurisdiction done within a period of one year.

Geomapping will also be done of an area of 10 Kms. from the

boundary of such areas. The records should be maintained
21

and updated by the Municipal Corporations within such time

period as the Municipal Corporation deems fit, keeping in

mind the specific circumstances of the area under its

jurisdiction.

(2) Whenever any new area, which is not already

geomapped, is brought under the jurisdiction of a particular

municipality, it will be the duty of the concerned Municipal

Corporation to ensure that geomapping of the area is

conducted and the geomapping records of such area are

created at the earliest.

(3) In cases where buildings are already existing and it

is alleged by the Municipal Corporation that the building has

been constructed in violation of applicable laws:­

3.1. The Commissioner/Competent Authority on

coming to know that an illegal building has been

constructed, shall issue a show cause notice giving 7

days in terms of Section 351 to the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor etc. Along with this

notice the Commissioner/Competent Authority shall also

send photographs and visual images taken on the site
22

clearly depicting the illegal structure. Photographs and

images should digitally display the time and date of

taking the photographs;

3.2. In case the notice is not replied to within the

time prescribed, i.e., 7 days, then the building shall be

immediately demolished by the Municipal Corporation;

3.3 In case the owner files a reply to the notice,

the Commissioner/Competent Authority of the

Municipal Corporation shall consider the reply and pass

a reasoned order thereon. In case the reply is not found

satisfactory then the order shall be communicated in the

manner laid down hereinafter to the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor etc. giving him

further 15 days’ notice before demolition of the property.

During this period the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor etc. can approach

the appellate/revisional authority or the High Court.

(4) In those cases where according to the municipal

corporation there is ongoing construction which is being

carried on in violation of the applicable laws:­
23

4.1. The Commissioner/Competent Authority on

coming to know that there is ongoing construction in

violation of the applicable laws shall issue a show cause

notice giving 24 hours in terms of Section 351 to the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect etc. Along

with this notice the Commissioner/Competent Authority

shall also send photographs and visual images taken on

the site clearly depicting the illegal structure.

Photographs and images should digitally display the

time and date of taking the photographs;

4.2. The Commissioner/Competent Authority can

also issue an interim ‘stop­construction’ order along with

the notice or any time after issuing the notice. Such

order shall also include the relevant pictures of the

alleged violation(s). Photographs and images should

digitally display the time and date of taking the

photographs;

4.3. In case the notice is not replied to within the

time prescribed, i.e., 24 hours, then the building shall be
24

immediately demolished by the Municipal Corporation;

4.4. In case the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect etc. files a

reply to the notice, the Commissioner/Competent

Authority of the Municipal Corporation shall consider

the reply and pass a reasoned order thereon. In case the

reply is not found satisfactory then the order shall be

communicated in the manner laid down hereinafter to

the owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect etc.

giving him further 7 days’ notice before demolition of the

property. During this period the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect etc. can

approach the appellate/revisional authority or the High

Court.

(5) In regard to service of notice we direct as follows :­

5.1. Wherever possible notice shall be served

personally on the person who is raising or has raised the

illegal structure including the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect etc.;
25

5.2. Notice, in addition to the traditional mode, can

also be sent through electronic means, both by e­mail and

by sending a message on the mobile phones. Even a

message to a foreman or person in­charge of the

construction at the site will be deemed to be sufficient

notice;

5.3. In the notice, the municipal authorities shall also

give an e­mail ID and phone number where the noticee can

send his reply through e­mail or messaging services. This

will hopefully do away with all disputes with regard to

alleged non­service of notice.

(6) Till the State frames any laws in this regard, we

direct that before any construction/reconstruction, or repair

not being a tenantable repair is carried out, the

owner/occupier/builder/contractor/architect, in fact all of

them should be required to furnish a plan of the structure as it

exists. They will also provide an e­mail ID and mobile phone

number on which notice(s), if any, can be sent. This map can

be taken on record and, thereafter, the construction can be

permitted. In such an eventuality even if the demolition is

illegal it will be easy to know what were the dimensions of the
26

building. This information should not only be in paper form in

the nature of a plan, but should also be in the form of 3D

visual information, in the nature of photographs, videos etc.

24. As far as Civil Appeal No. 7627 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15909

of 2018 is concerned the structure has been rebuilt. That

obviously cannot be un­done now. We, however, direct the

municipal corporation to ensure that fresh notice is issued to the

respondent and thereafter action is taken strictly in accordance

with law. The whole process should be completed within a period

of three months. In case an order adverse to the respondent is

passed by the municipal corporation, then the respondent will be

at liberty to approach the High Court and raise all grounds

available to it.

25. As far as Civil Appeal No.7626 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.16489

of 2018 is concerned, reconstruction has not been done and,

therefore, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the order of

the High Court to the extent it allows reconstruction. We remit

the matter to the High Court which is requested to proceed in

accordance with law laid down in this case.
27

26. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. The

Registrar General of the Bombay High Court shall cause copies of

this judgment to be served upon the Chief Secretary, State of

Maharashtra as well as Principal Secretary, Urban Development

Department, Mumbai, Maharashtra, who will ensure that copy of

this judgment is served upon all the municipal corporations in

the entire State of Maharashtra. Pending application(s), if any,

also stand(s) disposed of.

…………………………………..J.
(Deepak Gupta)

………………………………….J.
(Aniruddha Bose)

New Delhi
October 24, 2019

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.