Bombay High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Litigant Seeking Protection For Illegal Structure On Public Street; Flags Inaction By Authorities
The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on a litigant who sought protection against demolition of an unauthorized structure situated on a public street, holding that a party seeking to perpetuate illegality on public land is not entitled to equitable relief. The Court observed that prolonged retention of such structures through litigation encourages similar encroachments and undermines municipal governance.
Justice Kamal Khata was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the City Civil Court, which had dismissed the appellant's Notice of Motion seeking to restrain the Municipal Corporation from demolishing a structure at M.G. Road, Mumbai. The appellant claimed that her father had acquired the premises in 1986 under an agreement and that the structure had existed for several decades. The Corporation maintained that the structure was an unauthorised construction situated on a municipal footpath forming part of a public street and was liable to be removed as part of a drive to clear obstructions and improve traffic flow.
The Court noted that the appellant had failed to establish any lawful right or authority in respect of the structure. The agreement dated 12th September 1986 was unregistered, pertained to public land and did not transfer any valid interest in a structure. The Court reiterated that payment of electricity charges, municipal taxes or possession of a shop and establishment certificate does not create title nor regularise an unauthorised construction.
The Court observed that the appellant had succeeded in retaining possession of an admittedly unauthorised structure for over six years since the issuance of the notice in 2019. Such prolonged retention, facilitated by litigation, sends an adverse signal and encourages wrongdoers to continue benefiting from illegal constructions while proceedings remain pending. It held that a litigant who seeks protection of an unauthorised structure on public land cannot invoke equitable jurisdiction and that courts must deny relief to parties attempting to legitimise unlawful occupation.
The Court expressed concern that the existence of the unauthorised structure for more than two decades, particularly at a location immediately behind a municipal chowki and abutting a railway line, raised serious concerns regarding dereliction of duty. It directed the Municipal Commissioner to initiate an inquiry to identify responsibility for prolonged inaction and to place the order on the service records of the concerned officers.
“The location of the unauthorised structure—immediately behind a Municipal chowki and abutting a railway line—raises serious and troubling questions. Such a structure could not have existed for years without willful blindness or dereliction of duty on the part of municipal officers,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court warned against any future violation of court orders by the Corporation or its employees, noting that such violations would invite strict consequences, including departmental inquiry and suspension.
Case Title: Preeti Manohar Sakpal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. [CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 874 OF 2024]