Kannamwar Nagar Shree Krishna Chsl v. Shri. Ramesh Pukhraj Parihar

Bombay HC14 Oct 2025IA/6491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S. 314 MMC Act removal notices; footpath encroachment; MHADA pitchcards; ground rent; occupation since 1976; rejection of interim relief; Appeal From Order Bombay High Court; intervention by Kannamwar Nagar Shree Krishna CHSL; Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2025 Division Bench order dated 7th July 2025; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; Development Plan footpath/road reservation; ad-interim relief continued; listing 25th August 2025; Gauri Godse J.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of the ad-interim relief already granted; appeals listed on 25th August 2025 under the same caption, high on board, at the request of the learned counsel for the Corporation. ¶¶76

Kannamwar Nagar Shree Krishna Chsl vs Shri. Ramesh Pukhraj Parihar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Continuation of the ad-interim relief already granted; appeals listed on 25th August 2025 under the same caption, high on board, at the request of the learned counsel for the Corporation.

¶¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants' structures constitute encroachment on the footpath attracting notices under Section 314 of the MMC Act, notwithstanding the appellants' claim of occupation since 1976 based on MHADA pitchcards and MHADA's acceptance of ground rent. +1 more

¶¶65

Court's answer

The Court recorded that there is no dispute that the structures are standing on the layout of MHADA and that MHADA is accepting ground rent from the appellants.

¶¶72

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed that the ad-interim relief already granted shall continue to operate until the appeals are heard on 25th August 2025.

¶¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), order dated 11th August 2025 in seven clubbed Appeal-from-Order matters (Nos. 261, 263, 264, 266, 267, 268 and 316 of 2023) arising out of rejection of interim relief in suits challenging notices issued under Section 314 of The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ('MMC Act'). Kannamwar Nagar Shree Krishna CHSL intervened through an application, contending on the basis of a Division Bench order dated 7th July 2025 in Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2025 that the appellants' structures encroach on the footpath. The appellants rely on pitchcards issued by MHADA, claim occupation since 1976, and contend that MHADA accepts ground rent even today. The Court recorded that there is no dispute that the structures stand on the MHADA layout and MHADA is accepting ground rent. Learned counsel for the Corporation sought time to verify the decision of this Court interpreting the process for issuing notice under Section 314 and whether the Development Plan shows the land as footpath/road. Ad-interim relief already granted was directed to continue; the appeals were listed on 25th August 2025 under the same caption, high on board. No substantive merits decision was taken in this order.

¶1

Iresh

¶2

18.261.23 ao.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 261 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3511 OF 2023

¶6

Smt. Vibhavari Pratap Bane

¶7

.....Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6491 OF 2024

¶12

Kannamwar Nagar Shree Krishna CHSL .....Appellant

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Shri. Ramesh Pukhraj Parihar .....Respondent

¶15

IRESH

¶16

MASHAL

¶17

Digitally signed byIRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.08.14 18:15:14 +0530

¶18

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 268 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3518 OF 2023

¶19

Shri. Ramesh Pukhraj Parihar .....Appellant

¶20

Vs.

¶21

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .....Respondents and anr

¶22

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 267 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3517 OF 2023

¶23

1/5

¶24

18.261.23 ao.docx

¶25

Smt. Vibhavari Pratap Bane .....Appellant

¶26

Vs.

¶27

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr

¶28

.....Respondents

¶29

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 266 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3516 OF 2023

¶30

Godabai Govind Shinde

¶31

.....Appellant

¶32

Vs.

¶33

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr

¶34

.....Respondents

¶35

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 264 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3514 OF 2023

¶36

Shri. Baddamilal Fathalal Jain

¶37

.....Appellant

¶38

Vs.

¶39

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr

¶40

.....Respondents

¶41

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 263 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3512 OF 2023

¶42

Ramkishor Sharadprasad Jaiswal

¶43

.....Appellant

¶44

Vs.

¶45

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr

.....Respondents

2/5

18.261.23 ao.docx

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 316 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3981 OF 2023

¶50

Shri. Jagaram Devaji Chaowdhary

¶51

.....Appellant

¶52

Vs.

¶53

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr

¶54

.....Respondents

¶55

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b Ms. Aditi Naikare for the appellant Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Mr. Om Suryawanshi for BMC Mr. Shakeeb Shaikh a/w Mr. Ashraf a/w Mr. B. Parekh for the intervener

¶56

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶57

DATE : 11^th AUGUST 2025

¶58

ORDER:

¶59

The society has filed an intervention application making a

¶60

grievance that the structures belonging to these appellants are on footpath. Learned counsel for the intervener has tendered an order dated 7^th July 2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2025. He submits that Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2025 is filed as according to the society, there is an encroachment made on footpath and these appellants are encroachers.

¶61

These appeals arise out of rejection of interim relief in a

¶62

3/5

¶63

18.261.23 ao.docx

¶64

suit filed to challenge notice issued under Section 314 of The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’).

¶65

These appellants rely upon the pitchcards issued by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (‘MHADA’) and they claim that they are occupying the structures since 1976. The appellants further contend that MHADA is accepting ground rent from them even today. The appellants, therefore, submit that there is no encroachment made by the appellants.

¶66

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the structures are on the footpath and hence, notices are issued under Section 314 of the MMC Act. He, however, seeks time to verify the decision of this Court interpreting the process to be followed while issuing notice under Section 314 of the MMC Act. He also seeks time to verify whether under the Development Plan, these lands are shown as footpath/road and whether the Corporation has taken any steps for utilizing the land for the reservation of the footpath/road.

¶67