Rajendra Mohanlal Bhargav vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajendra Mohanlal Bhargav vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the remedy of approaching the Civil Court; the writ petition itself was not entertained.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Corporation demolished the Petitioner's 148 sq.ft. shop, which he was using as a flour mill, or whether the dilapidated building was pulled down by the society itself — a matter on which this Court found disputed questions of fact. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the disputed questions, and with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the remedy of approaching the Civil Court (for which a notice under Section 80 CPC has been issued), the writ petition is not entertained and is disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

This Court found that there are disputed questions of fact as between the Petitioner's contention that the Municipal Corporation demolished his 148 sq.ft. flour-mill shop and the Respondent-BMC's recorded position that the dilapidated building was demolished by the society itself.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), WRIT PETITION NO. 3011 OF 2025 — Rajendra Mohanlal Bhargav v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. — Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ. — Decided 22 September 2025. The Petitioner contended that MCGM demolished his 148 sq.ft. shop, which he was using as a flour mill, and had earlier issued a legal notice dated 8 April 2025 to the Municipal Commissioner to be treated as a pre-requisite notice under Section 80 CPC for claiming damages from MCGM. The Advocate for BMC placed on record a communication dated 22 September 2025 of the Designated Officer, R/North Ward (photostat marked 'X'), recording that a notice under Section 353B MMC Act was initially issued; the Technical Advisory Committee inspected the site on 24 October 2024 and declared the building C-1 Category (to be evacuated and demolished immediately); a notice under Section 354 MMC Act was issued to the Chairman/Secretary/Owner/Occupier to vacate and pull down the dilapidated building 'Om Jagannath Apartment CHSL' within 7 days; water and electricity were discontinued on 6 February 2025; and the building was demolished by the society, the Corporation's office not being instrumental. Finding that there are disputed questions, the Bench declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it with liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy of approaching the Civil Court, a Section 80 CPC notice having been issued. No precedents were cited; quantum of damages claimed is not stated in the judgment.

21-WP-4322-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3011 OF 2025

Rajendra Mohanlal Bhargav ...Petitioner

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai And Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b Ms. Aditi S. Naikare, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. V. Tondwalker i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocate for the Respondent-BMC.

Mr. Sanjay Sambare, Designated Officer, R/N Ward, BMC is present in the Court.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 22^nd SEPTEMBER, 2025.

P.C. :

The Petitioner has issued a legal notice to the Municipal

Commissioner on 8^th April, 2025. In the last paragraph, it is stated that the said notice be treated as a ‘pre-requisite notice as required under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)’, for

claiming damages from MCGM.

The learned Advocate for the Municipal Corporation has

placed on record a communication dated 22^nd September, 2025,

received by her today, under the signature of the Designated Page 1 of 3

Gitalaxmi

21-WP-4322-2025.odt

Officer, R/North Ward. A photostat copy of the said communication is marked as ‘ X ’ for identification. A reference to

the present case is made and the learned Advocate is informed that the Court be apprised that a notice was initially issued under Section 353B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act). Thereafter the Technical Advisory Committee inspected the site on 24^th October, 2024. The Committee declared the building as falling in C-1 Category, i.e. to be evacuated and demolished immediately. Thereafter, a notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act was issued to the Chairman/Secretary/ Owner/Occupier to get the building vacated and pull down the dilapidated building known as “Om Jagannath Apartment CHSL” within 7 days. The Water and Electricity connections were discontinued on 6^th February, 2025. It is specifically stated that the office of Municipal Corporation was not instrumental in demolishing the building. It was demolished by the society.

We find that there are disputed questions. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Municipal Corporation demolished his 148 sq.ft. shop, which he was using as a flour mill (पि�ठा�ची�पि�रणी�). It is averred in the Petition that the said structure

was not a part of the building and was positioned in the corner of Page 2 of 3

Gitalaxmi

21-WP-4322-2025.odt

compound surrounding the building.

In view of the above, with liberty to the Petitioner to avail

of the remedy of approaching the Civil Court, for which a notice under Section 80 of the CPC has also been issued, this Petition is not being entertained and the same is disposed off .

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2025.09.24 13:08:18 +0530

Page 3 of 3

Gitalaxmi