Allowed

Smt. Jyostna Arun Gaikwad v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC25 Aug 2023IA/2026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the order rejecting a temporary injunction. The Court held that mere covering of an existing wall with sheets did not constitute unauthorized construction, warranting interim protection to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; Notice of Motion was made absolute; appellant undertook not to carry out new construction without permission.

Smt. Jyostna Arun Gaikwad Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

36-AO-152-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 152 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2026 OF 2023

¶4

Smt. Jyostna Arun Gaikwad ...Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Harish R. Pawar, for Appellant. Mrs. Smita Tondwalkar, for Respondents - MCGM.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2023.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this Appeal Appellant challenges order dated 16 February 2023 passed by the City Civil Court rejecting Notice of Motion No.114 of 2023 for grant of temporary injunction. The Plaintiff has instituted L.C. Suit No.76 of 2023 challenging notice dated 12 December 2022 issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation under the provisions of Section 354(A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. The notices in respect of the following structures.

¶11

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALILIYAKAT LIYAKATJAMADARDate: JAMADAR 2023.08.29 10:42:07 +0530

1/3

S. L. JAMADAR

36-AO-152-2023.doc

“ Schedule (Description of work):

¶16

Ongoing unauthorized construction of structure i.e.
compound walls using material M.S. fabricated sheets and angles
adm. @ 80 rm X 7 mtr height situated at CTS No.831 Nr. Rolex
Shopping Centre, Opp. Topiwala Maternity Home, Bandu Gore
Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon West, Mumbai.”

¶17

The learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the compound wall at the vacant plot already exists. All that is done by Appellant is to put fiber/ tin sheets at the compound wall with a view to protect the property for being encroached. He would submit that no other construction activities undertaken at the suit site.

¶18

Ms. Tondwalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for RespondentMCGM would oppose the Appeal and support the order passed by the City Civil Court.

¶19

I have gone through the description of the offending structure described in notice dated 12 December 2022. I have also seen the photographs which shows existence of compound wall at the suit site. Prima facie it appears that the Appellant has merely put in fiber/tin sheets at the existing wall. Photographs do not indicate any other construction activity at the site.

¶20

Considering the nature of the offending structure, in my view the

¶21

City Civil Court ought to have extended interim protection to the Appellant.

2/3

S. L. JAMADAR

36-AO-152-2023.doc

ORDER

i) The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶27

ii) Order dated 16 February 2013 passed by the City Civil Court is

¶28

set aside and Notice of Motion No. 114 of 2023 is made absolute in the prayers made therein.

¶29

iii) Appellant undertakes not to carry out any construction activity at

¶30

the suit site without obtaining necessary development permission from the Municipal Corporation.

¶31

iv) Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

v) In view of the disposal of Appeal from Order, Interim Application No.2026 of 2023 does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶33

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶34

3/3

¶35

S. L. JAMADAR

Smt. Jyostna Arun Gaikwad v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyostna Arun Gaikwad v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sqn Ldr (Dr.) Sanjay Sinvhal (Retd.) Vs Powai Jal Vayu Vihar Sector-a Co-Op.Housing Society Limited and Others

Krishnat Ananda Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Clera Simon Mendonza Vs the State of Maharashtra through Office of Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Arun Ramnath Desai Vs Smt. Late Mandakini Wd. of Late Ramnath P. Desai (Deceased)

Pune Mahanagarpalika Kamgar Union Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation

Smt. Jyostna Arun Gaikwad Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another