Repair Permissions From BMC Do Not Prove Legality Of Structure: Bombay High Court Refuses Relief Against Demolition

The Bombay High Court has held that permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation for repairs or alterations do not establish the legality of a structure, nor do they prove its existence prior to the relevant cut-off date. The Court observed that such permissions, in the absence of independent proof, cannot be relied upon to legitimise unauthorised constructions.

A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata was hearing a writ petition challenging notices and demolition orders issued by the BMC in respect of industrial structures at Kurla, Mumbai. The petitioners claimed that their structures existed prior to the datum line of 1 April 1962 and relied on documents such as assessment records, Tikka Sheets, and repair permissions granted by the BMC.

The Court noted that the entire structure in question was illegal, and the impugned orders elaborately state as to why the structures are held to be illegal and deserve to be demolished. Hence, the Court held that the impugned orders are certainly not lacking reasons or perverse.

The Court examined the material on record and found that none of the documents conclusively established the existence of the structure prior to the datum line. It noted that the Tikka Sheets and layout plans, in fact, indicated the absence of any structure on the plot at the relevant time.

The Court held that repair permissions granted by the BMC cannot validate an unauthorized structure. It observed that such permissions may at best create a presumption of existence, but cannot conclusively establish legality unless supported by independent evidence. The Court remarked that the grant of such permissions without verifying legality reflects an “abysmal state of affairs” in civic administration. It observed:

“… the repair permissions granted by the BMC, would not by itself, conclusively prove that a structure existed prior to the datum line. Any permission/s granted by the BMC either for alteration or modification a structure, though it may carry a presumption regarding the existence of such structure, cannot conclusively establish that the structure existed prior to the datum line unless the same is independently substantiated by supporting documents.”

The Court further emphasised that unauthorized constructions cannot be protected merely on the basis of subsequent permissions or administrative lapses. It reiterated that illegality is incurable and cannot be regularised through indirect means.

The Court remarked that the officials who gave the permissions are responsible for the rampant illegalities in the State. It emphasized that granting relief to the Petitioners would encourage the public perception that one can construct illegally and regularise the same by obtaining such permissions subsequently.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to grant any relief to the petitioners.

Case Title: Siesta Industrial & Trading Corporation & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 3448 of 2023]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 230

Click Here To Read/Download Order