Assessment Records and Repair Permissions Do Not Regularize Unauthorized Structures nor Establish Title to Land.

The Petitioner, a 72-year-old senior citizen, claimed ownership of a 120 sq. ft. room in Borivali, Mumbai, based on Sale Deeds dated 2004 and 2009.

He alleged that the structure existed prior to 1961-62 and relied on municipal assessment records, utility bills, and a 2023 communication from the Executive Engineer stating no permission was required for "tenantable repairs".

The Petitioner subsequently carried out works which resulted in the structure admeasuring approximately 246.92 sq. ft.

On January 18, 2024, the Municipal Corporation (MCGM) issued a Stop Work Notice alleging unauthorized construction.

An order was passed on February 1, 2024, and the structure was demolished on February 2, 2024. The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the notice and demolition were void and sought ₹80 lakhs in compensation.

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The Court applied the principle that municipal assessment records and utility bills may indicate occupation but do not establish legal title or municipal sanction for construction.

The court relied on Laxmi Shetye v. MHADA [2024:BHC-OS:4270-DB] and Sidharam M. Yanagandul v. State of Maharashtra, holding that assessment to property tax does not change the unauthorized character of a structure.

Under the Siesta Industrial and Trading Corporation v. MCGM [2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2799] precedent, the court emphasized that permission for "tenantable repairs" cannot be used to enlarge or reconstruct a structure beyond its original sanctioned footprint.

Furthermore, relying on SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the court reiterated that a litigant who withholds vital documents or misleads the court is not entitled to relief.

The Court found that while the Petitioner’s Sale Deed mentioned a 120 sq. ft. room, the Petitioner failed to produce any sanctioned plan from the Planning Authority for either the original 120 sq. ft. or the expanded 246.92 sq. ft. area.

The Court noted that "tenantable repairs" do not authorize an occupant to double the area or alter dimensions contrary to a sanctioned plan.

The Court observed that the Petitioner attempted to mislead the bench by using private recitals in Sale Deeds to claim municipal legality.

It further noted that the Petitioner was not a member of the Respondent No. 7 Society and held that disputed questions of title, possession, and the extent of loss are factual in nature and cannot be adjudicated under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226.

The Court declined to award compensation or order restoration but clarified that the Petitioner may pursue civil remedies before a competent forum for any claims regarding tenancy or ownership. Due to the Petitioner’s age, the Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs despite finding the Petitioner had attempted to mislead the Court.