Disposed¶26

Shaikh Shahid Abdul Latif Dadamiya v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC7 Mar 2026WP/1104/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 351 MMC Act show-cause notice; demolition of unauthorised construction; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai / BMC duty to act on speaking orders; Exhibits 'E' and 'F'; three-month timeline direction; inaction by authorities; open land brick masonry A.C. sheet roof structures; W.P. No.1104 of 2026; 2026:BHC-OS:6564-DB; Karnik & Modak JJ.; 13 March 2026; Bombay High Court writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

MCGM directed to take appropriate action on the Section 351 notices expeditiously and within three months of communication of the order, subject to any legal impediment; Writ Petition disposed of. ¶26

Shaikh Shahid Abdul Latif Dadamiya vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-OS:6564-DB

¶2

Bhogale 4-wp-1104-26.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1104 OF 2026

¶5

Shaikh Shahid Abdul Latif Dadamiya … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors.

¶8

.… Respondents

¶9

¶10

Adv. Amit Jaiswar i/b. Adv. Vimlesh Singh, for the petitioner. Adv. Rutuja Bodake i/b. Adv. Komal Punjabi, for the respondentBMC.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 13^th MARCH 2026

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent

¶17

No.3 has illegally and unauthorisedly constructed two ground floor

¶18

structures admeasuring 4.70 m x 6.80 m x 3.00 m (ht) approximately and admeasuring 4.70 m x 2.30 m x 3.00 m (ht)

¶19

using brick masonry wall and A C Sheet Roof on open land at the

¶20

property which is described in the Writ Petition. The Corporation

¶21

had issued two notices under Section 351 of the Mumbai

¶22

¶23

Bhogale 4-wp-1104-26.odt

¶24

Municipal Corporation Act (“MMC Act”, for short) asking the respondent No.3 to show cause why the illegal construction should not be demolished. After hearing the respondent No.3, the speaking orders were passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM” for short), both dated 9^th December 2022 which are at Exhibits ‘E’ and ‘F’ of the Writ Petition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the notices and the speaking orders passed, no action has been taken against the structures which have now been declared to be unauthorised.

¶25

Since the notices have already been issued under Section 351 of the MMC Act and the speaking orders have been passed, the Corporation is duty-bound to take the notices to their logical conclusion in accordance with law expeditiously. We therefore direct the Corporation to take appropriate action on the notices expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, subject to any legal impediment.

¶26

4. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/03/2026 18:17:23

¶28

Shaikh Shahid Abdul Latif Dadamiya v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Shahid Abdul Latif Dadamiya v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

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

Balu Ganpat Desai vs the State of Maharashtra through the Honble Secretary Urban Development Department

Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil vs The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Vijay Digambar Dekate vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through Its Commissioner

Sudarshan Baliram Yadav vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Salasar Unique Realtors LLP vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prestige Garden A-1 Chst Throu. Chairman and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.