Ashok Tukaram Ramugade vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumberi

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4542 OF 2024
Ashok Tukaram Ramugade ]
Senior Citizen, aged about 72 years, ]
62/603, Sahakar Society, Gorai Khadi, ]
L. T. Road, Above Neelam Pride Hotel, ]
Borivali (West, Mumbai – 400 091) ] … Petitioner
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Mumbai, ]
Through the Office of Commissioner, ]
Municipal Corporation for Greater ]
Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg, CST, ]
Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ]
2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner ]
st
R/Central, 1 Floor, BMC Office Bldg., ]
Near Borivali Railway Station, ]
Chandrawakar Road, Mumbai – 400 092. ]
3. Executive Engineer (B&F) ]
R/C Ward, ]
st
R/Central, 1 Floor, BMC Office Bldg., ]
Near Borivali Railway Station, ]
Chandrawarkar Road, Mumbai – 400 092. ]
4. D. D. Kantharia ]
The then designated Officer, R/Central ]
st
Ward, 1 Floor, BMC Office Building, ]
Near Borivali Railway Station, ]
Chandrawakar Road, Mumbai – 400 092. ]
5. Deepak J. Manjre ]
The then Asst. Engineer Building and ]
Factory, R/Central Ward, ]
st
1 Floor, BMC Office Building, ]
Near Borivali Railway Station, ]
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA
BHAGU
WADHWA
Date:
2026.07.07
16:25:39 +0530
SANDHYA
BHAGU 1/14
WADHWA

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
Chandrawakar Road, Mumbai – 400 092. ]
6. Nilkanth Jadhav ]
The then Officer, R/Central Ward, ]
st
1 Floor, BMC Office Building, ]
Near Borivali Railway Station, ]
Chandrawakar Road, Mumbai – 400 092. ]
7. Blue Star Crystal Co-op ]
Housing Society Limited ]
Plot No.117, CTS No. 2434(4), ]
Opp. Prabodhankar Thakare, ]
Sodawala Lane Road, Borival (West), ]
Mumbai – 400 092. ]
8. Paradigm Blue Star LLP ]
A Limited Liability Partnership duly ]
Registered under the Act, having its ]
Registered Address at 706 Aura Biplex, ]
Above Kalyan Jewellers, near to ]
Korakendra Flyover, Borivali West ]
Mumbai, 400092. ] … Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Adil Parsurampuria a/w. Adv. Amey Khot i/by M/s. Legal Vision for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Smita Tondwalkar, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-BMC.
Mr. Viraj Parikh i/by Trilegal for Respondent No.7.
Mr. Akash Shah a/w. Adv. D. Kharva for Respondent No.8.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 4 May, 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 7 July, 2026.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that, the impugned Stop Work
2/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
th st
Notice dated 18 January, 2024, as well as the impugned Order dated 1
February, 2024, are null and void. The impugned Notice and the Order
pertain to a room admeasuring 120 sq. ft. carpet area situated at plot
No.117, CTS No.2434(4) in Blue Star Crystal Housing Society compound
located opposite Prabodhan Thakare, Sodawala Lane Road, Borivali (West),
Mumbai – 400 092.
1.1) The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that the demolition of
nd
the said room, carried out on 2 February, 2024 pursuant to the impugned
st
Order dated 1 February, 2024, was illegal, null and void. As consequential
reliefs, the Petitioner seeks directions against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
restore the room admeasuring 120 sq. ft. and a further direction to
Respondent Nos.1 to 6 to pay compensation of Rs. 80 lakhs, together with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum until the actual payment, towards the
loss allegedly suffered by the Petitioner on account of illegal demolition.
The Petitioner further seeks a direction to Respondent No.1 to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the
concerned Officers of Respondent No.1-Corporation concerned with the
impugned action.
Background:
2) The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the structure on the
th
basis of two Sale Deeds dated 13 July, 2004, executed between M/s. Star
Construction Corporation and Mr. Roopam Kantilal Sanghvi and a
3/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
th
subsequent Sale Deed dated 5 March, 2009, executed between Mr.
Roopam Kantilal Sanghvi and the Petitioner.
3) To establish that the subject structure was authorised, the
Petitioner relies upon municipal assessment records, water and electricity
bills and a license obtained for carrying out business from the subject
premises. According to the Petitioner, the structure, along with the toilet
block, was in existence prior to 1961-62. Reliance is also placed upon the
building plan to support this contention.
4) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the existence
of the subject structure has been acknowledge by the developer, Paradigm
nd
Blue Star LLP, in the Development Agreement dated 22 August, 2022. It is
th
further submitted that the Architect’s proposal Letter dated 15 December,
2021, acknowledges the existence of the structure and the FSI attributable
to it.
5) The Petitioner alleges that, the Developer offered inadequate
compensation for the subject premises and upon the Petitioner refusing to
accept the same, threatened to have the structure demolished.
6) According to the Petitioner owing to the construction of a new
building built upon a raised ground level, the subject premises came to be
situated approximately four feet below the surrounding ground level,
thereby giving rise to an apprehension of water-logging. The Petitioner,
th
therefore, appointed an Architect and by a letter dated 18 April, 2023
4/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
sought permission to carry out repairs and renovation of the subject
premises.
th
7) By a communication dated 20 December, 2023, the Executive
Engineer informed the Petitioner that no permission was required for
carrying out tenantable repairs. The Petitioner claims that, acting upon the
said communication and adhering to the permissible FSI under the
Development Control and Promotion Regulations 234 (DCPR 2034) he
carried out only tenantable repairs to the existing premises.
th
8) On 18 January, 2024, Respondent No. 4 issued a Stop Work
Notice alleging that the Petitioner had undertaken unauthorized
construction beyond the area reflected in the plan approved by the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’).
9) The Petitioner relies upon the plan approved by MCGM in
respect of the Co-operative Society’s property and the communication dated
th
20 December, 2023 to contend that the Stop Work Notice was issued
without application of mind and with the malafide intention of
dispossessing him from the subject premises. According to the Petitioner, he
was entitled to reconstruct, repair and renovate the structure in accordance
with the sanctioned plan and no violation of the applicable FSI norms had
occurred.
10) Mr. Parsurampuria, appearing for the Petitioner narrated the
aforesaid facts and submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, the
5/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
present writ Petition be made absolute. The Respondents Advocates
strenuously opposed the same.
Reasons & Conclusion
11) We have heard Mr. Parsurampuria, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, and the learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents. We
have also perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.
12) The principal question is whether the Petitioner has produced
any cogent material to establish that the subject structure was sanctioned or
otherwise authorised under the applicable municipal laws.
13) The Petitioner relies substantially upon municipal assessment
records, electricity and water bills and a licence issued for carrying on
business from the premises. Such documents may indicate the existence or
occupation of a structure, or the provision of municipal and utility services
to it. They do not, by themselves, establish title to the land or demonstrate
that the construction was sanctioned or authorised under the applicable
planning laws.
14) An attempt is made to establish that the subject structure was
in existence prior to 1960 on the basis of an assessment record which states
that the structure was assessed prior to 31st March 1961. The assessment
record, however does not specify the area, dimensions or configuration of
the structure assessed at the relevant time. It, therefore, does not establish
that the structure presently claimed by the Petitioner corresponds to the
6/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
structure referred to in the assessment record.
15) During the hearing, we called upon the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner to produce the sanctioned plan pertaining to the subject
structure or any document evidencing the Petitioner’s ownership of the
underlying land. Learned Advocate fairly stated that the Petitioner does not
claim ownership of the land but claims ownership only of the structure. He
relied upon the sale deeds and, in particular, upon the following recital
th
appearing at internal page 7 of the sale deed dated 5 March, 2009:
st
“AND WHEREAS by an Indenture of Conveyance dated 1 day
of March, 1982, executed between the original owners,
therein referred as “the Vendors”, the said Builders, therein
referred to as “the Confirming Party” and the said Society,
therein referred to as “the Purchaser”, the said property
(except the said old structure room admeasuring about 120
sq.ft. which was occupied by the tenant Mr. Dwarkadas
Kashalchand Shah) was transferred to the said society and
the same remained in the ownership of the said Builders and
in the said Conveyance, the said society had agreed to admit
anyone as a member whosoever is the Purchaser of the said
premises.”
16) The aforesaid recital may constitute an acknowledgment, as
between the parties to the private instrument, of the existence of a room
admeasuring approximately 120 sq. ft. It cannot, however, operate as a
municipal sanction or confer legality upon a structure which is otherwise
not shown to have been constructed pursuant to a sanctioned plan. A
7/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
private agreement or conveyance recording the existence of a structure does
not, by itself, establish that the structure was authorised under the
applicable municipal and planning laws.
17) The recital also indicates that the room was occupied by a
tenant and its purchaser would be entitled to seek membership of the
Society. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a member of the Society. There is
also no material to show that, after purchasing the structure under the sale
th
deed dated 5 March, 2009, the Petitioner applied for membership of the
Society or that such an application was rejected.
18) More importantly, the Petitioner has not produced any
sanctioned plan specifically pertaining to the subject structure whether for
an area admeasuring 120 sq. ft. or 249.92 sq. ft. Nor is there any
contemporaneous municipal record specifying its sanctioned area and
dimensions.
19) The Petitioner’s own material indicates that the structure, after
the work undertaken by him, admeasured 22.94 sq. metres, equivalent to
approximately 246.92 sq. ft. The sale deed upon which the Petitioner relies
refers to a room admeasuring approximately 120 sq. ft. There is no
documentary material explaining how a structure stated to admeasure 120
sq. ft. came to admeasure approximately 246.92 sq. ft., or demonstrating
that such enlargement was sanctioned by the competent Authority.
20) Permission to carry out tenantable repairs does not authorise
8/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
an occupant to enlarge the area, alter the dimensions or reconstruct the
premises contrary to a sanctioned plan. Work which results in a substantial
increase in the area or changes the original footprint and configuration of a
structure cannot be protected merely by describing it as tenantable repairs.
21) In Laxmi Shetye v MHADA reported in 2024:BHC-OS:4270-DB
the Division Bench concurred with the view taken by the Single Judge in
Sidharam M. Yanagandul & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr reported
in 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 971 who held that, any structure, whether
authorised or unauthorised, constructed on a property within the limits of a
municipal corporation can be assessed to municipal taxes. Mere fact that a
structure which is errected without the permission of the Planning
Authority and unauthorisedly is subsequently assessed to the property tax
by the municipal corporation would not change the unauthorised character
of the structure nor would make the structure authorised from the date of
assessment.
22) We have noticed in several matters that reliance is placed upon
old assessment records to claim protection for structures whose original
area and dimensions are not disclosed in those records. Such assessment
records cannot be used to legitimize subsequent additions or enlargements
for which no municipal sanction is produced.
23) In Siesta Industrial and Trading Corporation vs. MCGM
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2799 the Court held the concerned
9/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
Officers who gave such permissions are responsible and are the cause of
these rampant illegal constructions in the State. It is imperative for the
Officers of the BMC to check as to whether the structure is authorized
before granting any such repair permission. The failure per se cannot inure
to the benefit of the wrongdoer. A permission to repair a structure, given
subsequent to the datum line, cannot prove either its existence prior to
datum line or it being authorised. In our view, granting reliefs to the
Petitioners would only encourage the public perception that one can
construct illegally and regularise the same by obtaining such permissions
subsequently. It would render the entire object of the legislature to have a
planned development and having the Municipal Act nugatory and otiose
resulting in illegalities being confirmed and ratified by subsequent repair
permissions.
24) The law must operate uniformly. A person who carries out
construction or reconstruction must establish that the work is authorised
under the applicable municipal and planning laws. In the present case, the
Petitioner has failed to produce any sanctioned plan or other reliable
documentary material establishing either that the alleged original structure
measuring approximately 120 sq.ft or presently measuring approximately
246.92 sq. ft. was authorized and lawfully constructed.
25) In our view, the Petitioner has attempted to mislead the Court
and gain unlawful advantage by stating that the subject premises was
10/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
authorised as it was acknowledged by the Society in the recitals and that
based on assessment paid and electricity bills attempted to make us believe
that the subject premises was authorised, thus, entitled to an authorised
premises in turn. This in our view would be encouraging wrongdoers and
illegal occupants to benefit from either their own or their predecessor’s
wrongdoings. Neither do these documents prove any title or entitlement of
the Petitioner in law. On this ground alone the Petition deserves to be
dismissed.
26) The Supreme Court in SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath &
Ors has held that a litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce
all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he
withholds a vital document or suppresses material information in order to
gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing a
fraud on the Court as well as the opposite party. Such a party is not entitled
to any relief. Above all, a Court must have a complete and candid disclosure
of all material particulars. A failure to disclose material particulars is
indistinguishable from an attempt to mislead the Court. This is now well
settled in our jurisprudence. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:-
(i) Hari Narain v Badri Das, (1964) 2 SCR 203;
(ii) Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, (1964) 3
SCR 481;
11/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
(iii) Gowrishankar & Anr v Joshi Amba Family Trust & Ors, (1996) 3 SCC
210;
(iv) Ashok Leyland Ltd v State of Tamil Nadu & Anr, (2004) 3 SCC 1,
paragraph 116;
(v) AV Papayya Sastry & Ors v Government of AP & Ors, (2007) 4 SCC 221;
(vi) Dalip Singh v State of UP, (2010) 2 SCC 114;
(vii) Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd v Additional Commissioner (Administration) &
Ors, (2010) 4 SCC 728;
(viii) A Shanmugam v Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu, etc, (2012) 6
SCC 430;
(ix) Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors v Erasmo Jack De Sequeira,
(2012) 5 SCC 370;
(x) Sciemed Overseas Inc v BOC India Ltd, (2016) 3 SCC 70;
(xi) Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik & Anr v Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors,
(2017) 5 SCC 496 .
27) The Petitioner’s claims regarding title to or possessory rights in
the subject premises are founded upon private sale deeds and disputed
factual assertions. The claim for restoration of the demolished structure and
compensation of 80 lakh would require adjudication of disputed questions ₹
concerning title, possession, the legality and dimensions of the original
structure, the nature and extent of the work undertaken by the Petitioner
and the loss allegedly suffered by him. These issues cannot be adjudicated
in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
12/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
28) Insofar as the Petitioner claims tenancy, ownership or any
other civil right in respect of the subject premises, it is open to him to
institute appropriate proceedings before the competent forum. We express
no opinion upon the merits of any such claim.
29) The Petition appears to seek adjudication of disputed private
rights and substantial monetary relief in writ jurisdiction, despite the
absence of any sanctioned plan pertaining to the subject structure and
despite the unexplained increase in its area from approximately 120 sq. ft.
to 246.92 sq. ft. The invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court in these circumstances is misconceived.
30) On the material placed before us, we find no illegality in the
issuance of the Stop Work Notice dated 18th January 2024 or in the order
dated 1st February 2024. Consequently, the demolition carried out
pursuant thereto cannot be held to be illegal in the present proceedings.
31) The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
32) It is clarified that the dismissal of this Petition shall not
preclude the Petitioner from pursuing such civil remedies as may be
available to him in law. All contentions in any such proceedings are kept
open.
33) Having regard to the nature of the claims made, the material
facts concerning the dimensions of the structure and the reliefs sought
against public officials, the Petition is dismissed. We were infact inclined to
13/14

sns 6-oswp-4542-2024-J.doc
impose exemplary costs, but since the Petitioner is a senior citizen aged
about 72 years, we do not propose to impose any costs.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).
14/14