Municipal assessment, repair permissions, and licences do not legalise unauthorised structures.

The Petitioner challenged notices dated 13 May 2026 and consequential orders dated 1 July 2026 issued by the Designated Officer, K/West Ward, under Section 351 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, directing removal of nine alleged unauthorised structures situated on CTS No. 844/12, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai.

The structures included porta cabins, temporary sheds, banquet halls, offices, a shop and a toilet.

The Petitioner claimed that the structures were tolerated commercial structures existing before 1 April 1962, the applicable datum line, and relied on a 1961 licence, repair permissions issued in 1978 and 1982, withdrawal of an earlier Section 351 notice in 1983, assessment bills, property records and municipal licences issued in 2002 and 2015.

The Municipal Corporation maintained that the structures were unauthorised and that the Petitioner had failed to establish their existence, nature or dimensions before the datum line.

The Petitioner also contended that the 1983 withdrawal of the earlier notice barred the fresh proceedings on the principle of res judicata.

1. Whether the Petitioner established that the nine structures were lawfully existing or protected structures constructed before 1 April 1962, so as to resist action under Section 351 of the BMC Act.

2. Whether licences, assessment bills, repair permissions, electricity or other municipal documents could legalise, regularise or establish the authorised character of the structures.

3. Whether the withdrawal of the earlier Section 351 notice in 1983 operated as res judicata against the impugned notices and orders.

4. Whether the impugned notices and orders were liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 351 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, concerning removal of unauthorised construction.

It held that assessment to property tax, electricity connections, trade or establishment licences, repair permissions and other administrative permissions do not confer legality or amount to regularisation of an unauthorised structure.

A claimant seeking protection for a structure allegedly existing before the BMC’s datum line must produce reliable material establishing its existence, nature, dimensions and lawful status as on the relevant date.

The Court relied on Ashok Tukaram Ramugade v. M.C.G.M., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 5080, Sidharam M. Yanagandul v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 971, and Laxmi Gopinath Shetye v. MHADA, Civil Writ Petition No. 1546 of 1996, decided on 13 March 2024, for the proposition that taxation or assessment does not regularise unauthorised construction.

It further followed the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, and Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995, against judicial protection of illegal constructions.

The Court found that the Petitioner had not produced any sanctioned plan or other document proving that the structures, in their existing form, were authorised.

The 1961 stone-cutting licence established, at most, permission to conduct an activity on the property; it neither proved the existence of a structure nor specified its nature or dimensions, and in any event was time-limited.

The 1978 and 1982 repair permissions likewise did not establish the legality or pre-1962 existence of the structures; the 1982 permission concerned five porta cabins and therefore could not substantiate the Petitioner’s broader claim.

The Court also found that the earlier notices and permissions did not reliably correspond to all nine structures and that the 1983 letter dropping the notice did not refer to proof of existence before the datum line.

Assessment entries relating only to three units could not establish the nature or extent of all nine structures, particularly in the absence of plans or contemporaneous evidence.

Consequently, the Court rejected reliance on municipal assessments and licences, found no basis for protecting the structures, and declined to interfere with the Corporation’s action.

The licences, assessment records, repair permissions and other documents did not legalise or regularise the constructions, and the Petitioner’s challenge based on res judicata was not accepted.

Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the Municipal Corporation’s orders directing removal of the unauthorised structures were left undisturbed.

Costs of ₹5 lakhs were imposed in each petition, totalling ₹10 lakhs, payable within two weeks of uploading the judgment to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center.