Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Suit No.1844/2018
...Order on NM No.2011/2018
MHCC010065772018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE of MOTION NO.2011 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1844 of 2018
Abdul Kalam Ali Bahadur Khan ....Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. ….Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI C. S. DATIR
(C.R. NO.04).
DATE : 16.07.2026
Appearance:
Advocate Mr. Vikas Murudkar for plaintiff.
Advocate Ms. Rupali Patil for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion, requesting to
restrain the defendant from acting in pursuance of the impugned Notice
issued by the defendant under section 351 of the MMC Act and
Speaking Order dated 17/5/2018.
2. According to him, he is in possession of the commercial
premises, runs snack stall by name M/s. Kalam Tea and Break Fast
Center, admeasuring 12’ X 30’ and occupied self contained residential
premises, which is surrounded by MS sheet wall and GI Sheet, located
at L.B.S. road, Mulund, Mumbai. The suit property is being used for
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Suit No.1844/2018
...Order on NM No.2011/2018
residential cum commercial purpose. Even defendant has issued shop
at license to run the shop. Even Gas connection also laid on the same
address. Electricity connection and ration card are also issued on the
same address. He pays Municipal Tax since 1995 till dated.
3. He has further contended that, defendant has issued
impugned Notice under section 351 of MMC Act for demolition of the
suit structure, alleging that, it is a unauthorized construction. The act
of the defendant is without application of mind. They have not
followed due process of law. Personal hearing was not given. The
impugned Notice and Speaking Order are bad in law, illegal and would
not be binding upon the plaintiff. The developer and the officer of the
Corporation are hand in gloves. Developer want to develop the suit
property, therefore, at the behest of developer, the Corporation
proposed action for demolition. Considering the same, suit structure be
protected and defendant be restrained from taking any action in
pursuance of impugned Notice and Speaking Order. He lastly prays,
Notice of Motion be allowed as prayed. To support his contention, he
placed following citations.
1. Amba Chawl Wadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh Mumbai Vs.
MCGM & Ors., 2005 A I H C 3221.
2. Suresh Shankar Rokade V. MCGM & Anr. 2018 (5) ABR 165
Bombay High Court.
3. Diwakar Ratan Thakur Vs. MCGM, AIR Online 2025 BOM
260.
4. Defendant/Corporation has filed reply and resisted the
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Suit No.1844/2018
...Order on NM No.2011/2018
Notice of Motion, stating that, plaintiff has not given Statutory Notice
under section 527 of the MMC Act before filing the suit. To issue the
Notices regarding the illegal structure are executive and administrative
act of the Corporation. No valid cause of action arose to file the suit.
Suit property is not identifiable under Order-7 Rule-3 of CPC.
Moreover, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and
Notice of Motion under section 515A of MMC Act. Plaintiff has not
produced single document before the Designated Officer, which will
prove that, the suit structure is constructed with permission or structure
is within declared slum area. Plaintiff has violated the Municipal Laws.
It is unauthorized structure, it can not be protected. Hence, they prayed
Notice of Motion be dismissed.
5. Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.
6. It is the main contention of the plaintiff that, suit property
falls under declared Slum area. Census certificate has been issued by
the competent authority. To support his contention, he has filed copy of
Survey record conducted by BMC and censused certificate issued by
Controller of Slum Authority.
7. According to him, those documents are not considered by
the Designated Officer.
8. I am view that, upon perusal of the Speaking Order, it
appears, plaintiff had not produced those documents before the
Designated Officer, therefore, there is no question to consider the same.
Considering the documents filed on record, especially censused
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Suit No.1844/2018
...Order on NM No.2011/2018
certificate, it would be appropriate to direct the Designated Officer to
consider those documents and to pass fresh Speaking Order. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The Designated Officer of defendant/
Corporation is hereby directed to tender an
opportunity to plaintiff to produce relevant
documents before him and consider the same
as per rule and pass fresh Speaking Order on or
before 31/8/2026.
2. Plaintiff to appear and produce all relevant
documents before competent Designated
Officer on or before 27/7/2026.
3. If plaintiff failed to appear and produce the
relevant documents before Designated Officer,
the Competent Authority may record the same
and pass appropriate order. Till then,
defendant shall not take coercive action in
respect of the suit structure.
4. Notice of Motion No.2011 of 2018 disposed of
accordingly.
(C. S. DATIR)
Judge,
Date: 16/07/2026 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 16/07/2026
Typed on : 16/07/2026
Checked on : 16/07/2026
Signed on : 16/07/2026
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Suit No.1844/2018
...Order on NM No.2011/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
16/07/2026 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 16/07/2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 16/07/2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 16/07/2026
-- 5 of 5 --