Disposed¶24

Mr. Lallan Khan Shammu Khan v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr.Asst.Engineer(B and F) L/Ward.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025IA/6489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.354A MMC Act notice; unauthorised construction above ground plus first floor; notice of motion for injunction dismissed; Corporation's statement dated 30.04.2019 before City Civil Court; BMC report dated 30.01.2019 of removal of first-floor unauthorised construction; notice implemented; appeal and Interim Application No. 6489 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous; MCGM/BMC L Ward; Bombay High Court Appeal From Order No. 198 of 2025; Gauri Godse, J.

What did the court decide?

In view of the report dated 30th January 2019 stating that the impugned notice is already implemented, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal; hence the appeal is disposed of as infructuous. ¶24

Mr. Lallan Khan Shammu Khan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr.Asst.Engineer(B and F) L/Ward. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether anything further survives for consideration in the appeal, given the Corporation's stand that the impugned notice already stands implemented.

¶21

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Consequent upon the disposal of the appeal, the accompanying Interim Application No. 6489 of 2025 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Gauri Godse, J.), 26 March 2025 — Appeal From Order No. 198 of 2025 with Interim Application No. 6489 of 2025: The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his notice of motion seeking an injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (L Ward) from implementing a notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 concerning alleged unauthorised construction above the existing ground-plus-one (ground plus first floor) structure. Earlier, on the Corporation's statement recorded on 30th April 2019 before the City Civil Court that the notice was confined to construction above the ground plus first floor, ad-interim relief had been granted, but the motion was finally dismissed. Before the High Court, the Corporation stated that pursuant to the impugned notice the unauthorised construction on the first floor had already been removed, placing on record a report dated 30th January 2019, and contended that the notice stood implemented and nothing survived in the appeal and suit. Holding that nothing further survived for consideration, the Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous and, consequentially, the interim application as infructuous. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the injunction or on counsel's apprehension of action against the ground plus first floor structure.

¶1

30-AO-198-2025.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 198 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6489 OF 2025

¶4

Mr. Lallan Khan Shammu Khan

¶5

… Appellant/Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Municipal Corporation of Greater … Respondent Mumbai through Asst. Engineer (B & F) L Ward.

¶8

Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Om Suryavanshi for the Respondent-BMC. Mr. Sachin B. Beldar, Assistant Engineer (B & F) L Ward.

¶9

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶10

DATE : 26^th MARCH 2025

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff to challenge dismissal of the notice of motion seeking injunction restraining the corporation from implementing the impugned notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (“MMC Act”).

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation

¶14

of unauthorised construction as per the impugned notice was above the existing ground plus one structure belonging to the plaintiff. He

¶15

Digitally signed RAJESHWARI by RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.03.27 00:05:30 +0200

¶16

1/3

¶17

30-AO-198-2025.docx

¶18

submits that even according to the corporation’s statement as recorded on 30^th April 2019 before the City Civil Court the impugned notice was only with regard to the construction above ground plus first floor. He submits that in view of the statement made on behalf of the corporation, ad-interim relief was granted. He, however, submits that at the time of deciding the notice of motion finally, the motion is dismissed by observing that no protection is necessary in view of the statement made on behalf of the corporation on 30^th April 2019.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant however apprehends that based on the impugned notice the action could not be taken with regard to the ground plus first floor structure.

¶20

Learned counsel for the corporation on instructions submits that pursuant to the impugned notice the unauthorised construction on the first floor is already removed. He has placed on record report to that effect. The report dated 30^th January 2019 is taken on record. He therefore submits that the impugned notice stands implemented and therefore nothing survives in the appeal and suit.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains for further consideration in the appeal. In view of the above, appeal is disposed of by passing following order :

¶22

2/3

¶23

30-AO-198-2025.docx

¶24

(i) In view of the report dated 30^th January 2019 stating that the impugned notice is already implemented, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal. Hence, appeal is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

(ii) In view of disposal of the appeal, interim application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶27

3/3

Mr. Lallan Khan Shammu Khan v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr.Asst.Engineer(B and F) L/Ward.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Lallan Khan Shammu Khan v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thr.Asst.Engineer(B and F) L/Ward.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nav-Tushar B-Wing Chs Limited, Chairman/Secretary Rahul Yashwant Meher vs Santosh Singh Ujagarshigh Virde and Another

Manik Manohar Kale Since Deceased Throu His L.H. vs Dayyabai Jaywant Shinde Alias Dayabai David Thorat

Vishwadarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. and Anr. vs Ghodawat Education Serv. L. L. P. and Ors.

Baban Dattatray Gholap vs Laxman Kondiba Gholap Deceased

Anant Shankar Dalvi vs Geeta Suresh Bhosle and Others

Vishram Vijayrao Lomate vs Dadaso Ramesh Kokate