'Building Cannot Be Demolished For Making Public Street Without Granting Hearing To Owner': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has quashed the sanction of a new road line (RL) by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC), holding that the move was taken without application of mind and in violation of the landowner's right to be heard.A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a petition filed by Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., challenging the decision to sanction a road cutting through its property.The petitioner had already received Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) permissions for a redevelopment scheme on the land and was in advanced stages of construction. However, a fresh RL was approved in 2024 to facilitate another SRA scheme on an adjoining plot at the request of a different developer and society. The RL was sanctioned based on a recommendation by the SRA that erroneously failed to mention the petitioner's sanctioned project on the land. The SRA later admitted this oversight and requested that both parties be heard, but the MCGM did not act on this correction.The respondents argued that what is sanctioned on the plot of the Petitioner is not a new road, but only that the alignment of the existing road has been altered. Further, it was contended that the Petitioner otherwise does not have any right of hearing while sanctioning the RL under Section 291 of the MMC Act.Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that when the proposed public street transgresses any building, requiring its demolition, the owner/occupier has to be given a hearing. The Court said:“…if the proposed public street renders any sanctioned building unbuildable, it cannot be that the Municipal Corporation would unilaterally proceed to sanction the street without providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.”The Court also noted that MCGM has shown a willingness to reconsider the sanctioning of the impugned RL upon receipt of a proposal from the SRA. The Court held that the impugned RL has been sanctioned with gross non-application of mind by the SRA to the factum of the Petitioner undertaking development on the plot where RL passes through. “Since the impugned decision is based on ignorance of relevant factors, we would be justified in exercising the power of judicial review in setting aside the impugned RL,” the court observed.Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned RL, on the grounds of non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice and held that the proposal for sanctioning of a new public street needs to be reconsidered by MCGM after securing fresh comments from SRA. Case Title: Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Commissioner & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2207 of 2025]Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Building Cannot Be Demolished For Making Public Street Without Granting Hearing To Owner': Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

Tags