After an 11-year legal battle, the Usha Sadan Housing Society has won its case against the BMC regarding the demolition of an 'unauthorized' structure in one of its wings. The city civil court dismissed the municipal order, criticizing the BMC for initiating proceedings without an approved building plan. The society argued that the structure in question had existed since the building's construction in 1958 and was used for storing old files. The court questioned the basis for deeming the structure unauthorized and emphasized the lack of examination of the complainant resident. This victory highlights the importance of due process in such matters.
After an 11-year legal struggle, the Usha Sadan Housing Society has emerged victorious in its case against the BMC. The society had been served a notice by the civic body to demolish an 'unauthorized' structure in one of its wings. The city civil court, however, dismissed the municipal order, criticizing the municipality for commencing proceedings without an approved building plan. Notably, the complaint leading to the BMC action had originated from a resident within the society. Situated near the Colaba post office, the society took its challenge to court in October 2012, disputing the notice that deemed a structure in the terrace passage illegal and subject to demolition. The society argued that the structure, located beside the lift room and A block staircase, had been in existence since the building's construction in 1958. Furthermore, it contended that the space had only been used for storing old files. In response, the BMC asserted that a resident had lodged the complaint about the 'unauthorized' structure. An official inspection, prompted by the grievance, concluded that the structure was not recently built. The civic body claimed that, following the inspection report, the inspection officer requested a copy of the approved building plan. Allegedly, due to the complainant's insistence on action, the ward officer issued the society a notice despite the absence of the plan. Expressing dissatisfaction with the BMC's response, the court questioned the basis for the conclusion that the structure was unauthorized, emphasizing the complainant resident's potential role as a crucial witness who could have provided an approved plan. The court noted that the defendants failed to examine the complainant and did not produce any such complaint on record. In nullifying the notice, the court highlighted, "Another significant consideration is that the said structure is not shown to be in the use and personal occupation of any of the members of the society." In conclusion, the resolution of the Usha Sadan Housing Society's legal ordeal against the BMC marks a significant triumph after more than a decade of litigation. The court's decision to dismiss the notice and criticize the civic body's actions underscores the importance of due process and the necessity for a solid legal foundation in such matters.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
