Dismissed¶28

Ethashamuddin Shaikh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2026AO/748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 351 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888; unauthorized structure; datum line 1 April 1962; pre-1962 authorization; demolition; perpetual injunction; Notice of Motion 3244 of 2024; slum cluster list 2024; serial no. 1473; Village Borla Motibag; Appeal From Order 748 of 2024; Bombay High Court; Ethashamuddin Shaikh; MCGM/BMC; interim protection till 29 April 2026; assessment bill 1 April 1994.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; at the request of the Appellant's counsel, the interim protection operating since 18th July 2024 was continued until 29th April 2026 to enable him to challenge the order. ¶28

Ethashamuddin Shaikh vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; at the request of the Appellant's counsel, the interim protection operating since 18th July 2024 was continued until 29th April 2026 to enable him to challenge the order.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant/original Plaintiff had established that his structure was authorized prior to the datum line viz., 1st April 1962. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Appellant/original Plaintiff failed to establish that his structure was authorized prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962; the earliest document relied upon was dated 1991 and the first assessment was of 1st April 1994, and no documents were produced from which pre-1962 authorization could be ascertained.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the structure's location in a slum cluster listed at serial no. 1473 in the slum cluster list 2024 made all structures authorized and precluded the notice was rejected: even if accepted, the Plaintiff was still required to show that his structure was in fact authorized, which the documents on record did not reveal.

¶24

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 14th August 2024 is a well-reasoned order which considers all submissions of the original Plaintiff; counsel could point out no infirmity in it, and the Court was not inclined to interfere with it.ratio¶28
The impugned order dated 14th August 2024 stands confirmed and the captioned Appeal From Order is dismissed.ratio¶28
All pending Interim Applications taken out in the Appeal From Order stand disposed of in terms of the order, and interim orders passed therein, if any, stand vacated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.; order dated 1st April 2026) — Appeal From Order No. 748 of 2024, Ethashamuddin Shaikh v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. — dismissed. The appeal challenged the Trial Court's order dated 14th August 2024 in Notice of Motion no. 3244 of 2024, taken out by the original Plaintiff — facing a Section 351, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 notice dated 30th April 2024 and a speaking order dated 14th June 2024 — for a perpetual injunction restraining enforcement of the notice and demolition of the structure. The Appellant's earliest relied-upon document was dated 1991 and the first assessment was of 1st April 1994; held that authorization prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962 had to be established and no documents proved it. Reliance on inclusion of the Village Borla, Motibag structure in slum cluster list 2024 at serial no. 1473 and existence prior to 2000 was rejected — slum listing did not dispense with proof that the particular structure was in fact authorized. Finding no infirmity in the well-reasoned impugned order, the Court confirmed it, dismissed the appeal, disposed of pending interim applications and vacated interim orders therein, while continuing the interim protection (operating since 18th July 2024) until 29th April 2026 to permit challenge.

¶1

33.AO/748/2024 Ethashamuddin Vs. MCGM

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed byAMOL AMOL PREMNATH PREMNATH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.04.08 11:18:50 +0530

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 748 OF 2024 WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14139 OF 2024

Ethashamuddin Shaikh

… Appellant

V/s.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. … Respondents

¶10

Mr. S. Shamim a/w. Mr. Murtuza Slatewala i/b. Shamim & Co. for Appellant. Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for Respondent – BMC.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

¶13

DATE : 1^st APRIL 2026

¶14

P. C.:

¶15

The present Appeal challenges an order dated 14^th August 2024

¶16

passed by the Trial Court in Notice of Motion no. 3244 of 2024. The said Notice of Motion was taken out by the original Plaintiff/Appellant herein challenging the notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 dated 30^th April 2024 and the subsequent speaking order dated 14^th June 2024 passed by the Respondent – Corporation seeking

¶17

a perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent – Corporation from enforcing the said notice and demolishing the notice structure.

¶18

Mr. S. Shamim, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the

¶19

Appellant has taken me through the facts of the case. He states that he had

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

------------------------------------Order dated 1^st April 2026

¶22

33.AO/748/2024 Ethashamuddin Vs. MCGM

¶23

produced all the necessary documentations before the Trial Court from which it could be ascertained that his structure was authorized. He invites my attention to the documents that have annexed at page no. 157 of the Appeal paper book. A perusal of the list of documents reveals that the earliest document that is sought to be relied upon by the Appellant/original Plaintiff is one dated 1991. Even the Assessment Bill which is sought to be relied upon, shows that the first assessment was done was on 1^st April 1994. Admittedly, in the present case, in order for the Appellant/original Plaintiff to succeed, he was required to establish that his structure was authorized prior to the datum line viz., 1^st April 1962. There are no documents whatsoever produced by the Appellant/original Plaintiff from which this position can be ascertained. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by Mr. Shamim before this Court is that the notice structure is situated at Village Borla, Motibag, which is included in slum cluster list 2024 at serial no. 1473. Mr. Shamim therefore submits that all structures in this slum are authorized and since they are in existence prior to 2000, the impugned notice could never have been issued by the Defendant – Corporation.

¶24

This Court is unable to accept the said contention raised by Mr. Shamim. Even if his statement were to be accepted, the original Plaintiff was still required to show that his structure was in fact authorized. The documents produced on record do not reveal this position. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order which considers all the submissions made by

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

------------------------------------Order dated 1^st April 2026

¶27

33.AO/748/2024 Ethashamuddin Vs. MCGM

¶28

the original Plaintiff. Mr. Shamim is unable to point out any infirmity with the same. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said impugned order dated 14^th August 2024, and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the captioned Appeal from Order is hereby dismissed.

¶29

All pending Interim Applications taken out in the present Appeal from Order if any, also stand disposed of in terms of this order, and all interim orders passed therein if any, shall stand vacated.

¶30

After the passing of this order, Mr. Shamim requests that the interim protection that has been operating in his client’s favour since 18^th July 2024 shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today since his client wishes to challenge this order. Accordingly, the protection granted earlier shall continue to operate till 29^th April 2026.

¶31

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )

¶32

Ajay Jadhav

¶33

Page 3 of 3 ------------------------------------Order dated 1^st April 2026

Ethashamuddin Shaikh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ethashamuddin Shaikh v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaila Shailesh More vs Deputy Registrar Co-Op. Soc. (on Depautation Societies Federation Ltd.

Homai K Desai vs Adi Alias Ardeshir Irani

Aruna Jitendra Shah vs Amit Narendra Shah

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Shri. Balu @ Balasaheb Baburao Jadhav and Others vs M/S. Adhya Properties Limited Thr. Partner and Other

Ethashamuddin Shaikh vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.