Repair permissions granted for an unauthorized structure do not establish its legality or prior existence to the datum line.

The Petitioners, occupants of an industrial shed at Bharat Coal Compound, Kurla (West), challenged seven notices dated 22nd December 2022 and seven speaking orders dated 10th March 2023 issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).

The Petitioners contended that the structure is a "tolerated structure" existing prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962, citing assessment records and repair permissions granted in 1993.

The BMC issued demolition notices under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, asserting that the structure is unauthorized.

The BMC countered that "Tikka Sheets" and City Survey (MR) plans indicated the plot was vacant or showed no hatched structures (indicating legality) at the time of the datum line.

1. Whether the subject structure existed prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962 and thus qualifies for protection from demolition.

2. Whether the speaking orders passed by the BMC were beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notices or were otherwise perverse.

3. Whether subsequent repair permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation serve as conclusive evidence of the legality of an unauthorized structure.

The court applied Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, regarding the demolition of unauthorized structures.

It relied on the principle from UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India that notices must specify grounds to allow for a reasonable hearing.

Crucially, the court applied the doctrine "illegality is incurable," as established in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 705] and reaffirmed in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767], which mandates that unauthorized constructions must be removed regardless of occupant identity.

It further cited Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin [2025 SCC OnLine SC 995] to emphasize that courts must not engage in judicial regularization of illegal buildings.

The Court found that the Petitioners failed to produce direct evidence of the structure's dimensions or existence prior to 1962.

It observed that the "Tikka Sheets" actually supported the BMC’s case, as the Petitioners' plot was marked with dotted lines (indicating an empty plot) rather than hatched lines (indicating structures).

The Court rejected the argument that an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) for an adjacent plot or general assessment bills proved the existence of the specific structure in question.

On the issue of repair permissions, the Court held that while they might carry a presumption of existence, they do not establish legality; if granted for an unauthorized structure, such permissions reflect the "abysmal state of BMC affairs" and cannot be used by the wrongdoer to ratify an illegality.

The Court concluded that the speaking orders were well-reasoned and did not travel beyond the notice.

It held that unauthorized structures cannot be tolerated or protected, as illegality is incurable.

The Court denied the Petitioners' request for a stay on the judgment, noting the blatant nature of the violation.

Relief was refused as granting it would encourage the public perception that illegal constructions can be regularized through subsequent administrative permissions.