Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Suit No.1617/2018
...Order on NM No.1964/2018
MHCC010064582018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE of MOTION NO.1964 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1617 of 2018
Amandeep Singh Sassi ....Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. ….Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI C. S. DATIR
(C.R. NO.04).
DATE : 11.08.2026
Appearance:
Advocate Mr. Dhotre for plaintiff.
Advocate Ms. Rupali Patil for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion, requesting the
effect and operation of the impugned Notice dated 22/05/2018 and
consequential order dated 23/5/2018 under section 354A of the MMC
Act be stayed.
2. According to him, he has filed the suit for declaration and
other ancillary reliefs sought for. According to him, he has purchased
the suit property by way of Conveyance Deed. He is in possession over
the suit property. There is no illegal or unauthorized construction as
such. Even though Corporation has issued impugned Notice dated
22/05/2018 and also passed impugned Speaking Order dated
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Suit No.1617/2018
...Order on NM No.1964/2018
23/05/2018, contending that, he has made unauthorized vertical and
horizontal extension and change of material of AC sheets without
permission of the Competent Authority. While issuing impugned Notice
under section 354 A of the MMC Act, defendant did not follow their
circular dated 11/8/2000 and 29/04/2006. The mandatory directions
have been not followed. The Notice has been issued mechanically and
without application of mind. Corporation ought to have follow their
circular in accordance with the law. Thus, Notice of Motion be allowed
and impugned Notice be stayed.
3. Corporation has filed reply to the Notice of Motion and
resisted the same, saying that, the averments made by the plaintiff are
not correct. Plaintiff has not given Statutory Notice under section 527
of the MMC Act. No cause of action arose to file the suit. Suit property
is not identifiable. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
In fact, officer of the defendant had inspected the suit premises on
21/05/2018 and found that, plaintiff was carrying unauthorized
reconstruction which was already demolished in vertical and horizontal
extension and made alteration by using blocks.
4. Therefore, defendant has issued notice to stop
unauthorized construction or to produce the permission if any.
However, plaintiff denied to accept the Notice. He has no documents of
authorization of the construction, thereafter, Designated Officer has
passed the Speaking Order on 23/05/2018 in accordance with law and
there is no illegality as such. Inspite of Notice, plaintiff has not stopped
his unauthorized work, therefore, defendant has rightly started the
action of demolition on 24/5/2018. When the demolition action is
going on, plaintiff has approached to this Court in vacation bench and
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Suit No.1617/2018
...Order on NM No.1964/2018
obtained status-quo order. The alleged construction is partly
demolished. Plaintiff has not taken permission for construction. He has
made unauthorized construction and thereby defendant has rightly
issued Speaking Order. He lastly prayed, Notice of Motion be dismissed.
5. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.
6. It appears, the officers of the defendant/Corporation had
inspected the suit premises on 21/05/2018 and found that, the plaintiff
was carrying the unauthorized reconstruction, which was already
demolished vertical an horizontal extension by using siporex blocks.
Thereafter, the Notice under section 354A of the MMC Act was issued
directing to the plaintiff to stop the unauthorized construction or to
produce the permission obtained from Corporation, if any, however,
plaintiff failed to produce permission. Not only this, plaintiff has neither
replied nor submitted any authenticated documents to prove the
authorization of the Notice structure within stipulated period.
7. It also appears that, plaintiff failed to prove that the
ongoing construction is going on with the prior permission of the
planing authority. As plaintiff failed to produce cogent and constructive
documents, the Designated Officer has passed the Speaking Order dated
23/05/2018. Even after issuance of Notice, plaintiff has not stopped
the erection of the unauthorized work. Therefore, defendants have
rightly started demolition action on 24/05/2018. As Court has granted
status-quo, the demolition process has been stopped. In fact, the suit
structure is partly demolished. The photographs to that effect are
placed on record. The conduct of the plaintiff shows that, he has started
reconstruction which was already demolished.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Suit No.1617/2018
...Order on NM No.1964/2018
8. It further appears that, plaintiff has made recital in para
no.4 of the plaint that, he is ready to go for regularization process.
I am view that, once’s the plaintiff has admitted that, he is
ready to opt the regularization proposal, it means, his structure is not
authorized. If he wants to make regularization proposal, he may
proceed in accordance with law and comply the same as per the
guideline of the Municipal Corporation. It is an independent
proceeding. If his regularization application is accepted by the
Corporation, the Court has nothing to do. However at any cost, without
the permission, the unauthorized work can not be protected.
9. Considering the first inspection report dated 21/05/2018,
the stop work Notice under section 354A of the MMC Act and the
Speaking Order dated 23/5/2018 couple with photographs filed by the
Corporation with the demolition report, I am of the candid opinion that,
suit structure can not be protected and thereby, plaintiff is not entitled
the relief sought for. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.1964/2018 stands dismissed and
disposed of accordingly.
(C. S. DATIR)
Judge,
Date: 11/08/2026 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 11/08/2026
Typed on : 11/08/2026
Checked on : 11/08/2026
Signed on : 11/08/2026
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Suit No.1617/2018
...Order on NM No.1964/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
11/08/2026 S.S.Sawant (Grade-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri C. S. DATIR
(Court Room No.04).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 11/08/2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11/08/2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 11/08/2026
-- 5 of 5 --