Shivbhuvan Dayashankar Sharma vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shivbhuvan Dayashankar Sharma vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in view of the Corporation's stand to demolish the subject structure if there are no legal impediments; petitioner at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act, which was requested to decide expeditiously; Corporation to proceed with the demolition if there is no legal impediment.

Issue for consideration

Whether appropriate action must be taken to demolish the unauthorised structure occupied by respondents No. 3 to 6, given the stay granted under the Slum Act. +1 more

Court's answer

As the Corporation had already taken a stand that it shall proceed to demolish the subject structure if there are no legal impediments, the petition was disposed of in view of that stand.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was left free to file an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act, and the Appellate Authority was requested to decide any such application expeditiously and to decide the appeal as early as possible.

Key takeaways

The Court declined to express any opinion on the disputed question whether the petitioner is the landlord of the subject structure, as it was not possible to decide that question in the writ petition.obiter¶4
The Corporation was directed to proceed with the action of demolition if there is no legal impediment.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2897 of 2025, decided 11 March 2026 (M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ.). Petitioner Shivbhuvan Dayashankar Sharma sought action against a structure occupied by respondents No. 3 to 6, alleging illegal unauthorised construction. The Corporation had in March 2025 demolished the structure to the extent of the first floor (ground floor not demolished) but could not proceed further because respondents No. 3 to 6 obtained an order dated 13/03/2025 from the Additional Collector under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 staying the notice issued under the Slum Act; respondents No. 3 to 6 also contended that a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was being implemented on the portion of the land over which the structure stands. The Court declined to decide the disputed question whether the petitioner was the landlord of the subject structure. Disposing of the petition in view of the Corporation's stand that it would demolish the structure absent legal impediments, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act, requested expeditious decision of any such application and of the appeal, and directed the Corporation to proceed with the demolition if there is no legal impediment.

Ingale

31-WP-2897-25.odt

Digitally signed by URMILA URMILA PRAMOD PRAMOD INGALEDate: INGALE 2026.03.11 19:46:57 +0530

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 2897 OF 2025

Shivbhuvan Dayashankar Sharma … Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. .… Respondents

Mr. Dhanraj Lodha, for the Petitioner. Mr. Jagdish N. Jayale, for the Respondents No. 3 to 6. Ms. Poornima Kantharia a/w Mr.S.V. Tondwalkar, for RespondentBMC.

Mr. Rambhau B. Kaute, Sr. Colony Officer (W/S.) H/W Ward.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ. DATE : 11^th MARCH 2026

P.C. :

Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the

Corporation has taken action in March 2025 against the subject structure which the petitioner says is unauthorised and the said structure in question was demolished to the extent of first floor. The ground floor was not demolished.

1

Ingale 31-WP-2897-25.odt

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents no. 3 to 6 carried out illegal unauthorised construction and are occupying the entire structure. Since the Corporation is satisfied that the structure is unauthorised, undoubtedly, appropriate action has to be taken to demolish the said unauthorised structure in accordance with law. Ms.Kantharia submits that necessary action will be taken against the said unauthorised structure, however, it is noticed that the respondents no. 3 to 6 have approached the Additional Collector by filing the proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slum Act’, for short) and vide order dated 13/03/2025, after considering the documents on record, stay has been granted on the notice issued under the Slum Act. In such view of the matter and on account of this legal impediment, the Corporation is unable to proceed further with the demolition.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 6 that though the land belongs to the Corporation, the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is also being implemented on the portion of the land over which the subject structure stands.

2

Ingale 31-WP-2897-25.odt

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would file an appropriate intervention application in the appeal before the Appellate Authority being the landlord of the subject structure. Respondents No. 3 to 6 dispute the fact that the petitioner is the landlord. We are not expressing any opinion since it is not possible for us to decide the disputed question in the writ petition.

Since the Corporation has already taken a stand that it shall proceed to demolish the subject structure if there are no legal impediments, the petition is disposed of in view of such stand.

It is open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Appellate Authority under the Slum Act for appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority is requested to decide the application if preferred by the petitioner expeditiously and decide the appeal as early as possible. The Corporation to proceed with the action of demolition if there is no legal impediment.

(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

3