Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
• Bombay High Court questioned BMC’s demolition of a Malad West structure over alleged procedural lapses under Section 351 proceedings.
• The petition challenges demolition of a 15-room property near Mith Chowky Metro Station in Mumbai.
• The court directed BMC to explain the action, warning that restoration orders could follow if due process violations are established.
The Bombay High Court has sought an explanation from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai over the demolition of a structure in Malad West, Mumbai, after observing that the civic body appeared to have acted in a “high handed manner” while carrying out proceedings under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Advertisement
The observations were made by Justice Milind N Jadhav while hearing an Appeal from Order filed by Ashok Mahadev Kule challenging a trial court order dated 10 March 2026 relating to demolition action taken by the corporation against structures situated at CTS No. 1, Survey No. 39, Village Valnai, near Mith Chowky Metro Station in Malad West. The High Court passed its order on 7 May 2026.
According to court records, the corporation issued a statutory notice under Section 351 on 23 January 2026 alleging unauthorised construction involving 15 rooms at the property. The petitioner stated that a detailed reply was submitted on 27 January 2026 along with documentary evidence regarding the existence and status of the structure.
The court noted submissions that the designated officer passed a speaking order on 31 January 2026, allegedly without granting a personal hearing to the petitioner. The structure was subsequently demolished on 6 February 2026. Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the demolition was executed within 13 days of the statutory notice and without adherence to procedural safeguards.
The petitioner further contended that the premises constituted a long-standing censused structure existing for more than five decades and relied on documentary records including a census certificate and a 2011 order issued by the Additional District Deputy Collector concerning non-agricultural assessment for residential and commercial use of the property.
The High Court observed that the corporation’s own circular dated 24 April 2025 required demolition action to be preceded by notice periods prescribed under municipal laws or a minimum 15-day period, whichever was later. The court noted prima facie that the prescribed process appeared not to have been followed in the present case.
Justice Jadhav directed the corporation to disclose the names of officers involved in the demolition process and explain the reasons for allegedly disregarding procedural timelines and principles of natural justice. The court stated that if satisfactory explanations were not placed on record, it could consider directing reconstruction and restoration of the demolished premises.
The court also referred to concerns regarding similar demolition disputes in Mumbai involving long-standing occupied structures where planning authorities allegedly initiated action despite documentary evidence regarding subsistence and existence of the premises. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 18 June 2026.
Source: Indian Kanoon website
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
