Allowed¶35

Ashwini Kumar Gupta v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026WP/4127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

unauthorized construction; demolition; writ of mandamus; Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation; MRTP Act Section 54; MRTP Act Sections 52 to 55; Section 260(1A)(a)(b) Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act 1949; Assistant Municipal Commissioner Ward No. 2; order dated 19.09.2024; PIL No. 80 of 2013; village Nagaon Gaibinagar Bhiwandi District Thane; recovery of demolition expenses; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directed to demolish the unauthorized construction described in the order dated 29.08.2024 as early as possible after verifying absence of legal impediment; if Respondent No. 2 does not demolish at his own cost, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the expenses of demolition from Respondent No. 2. ¶35

Ashwini Kumar Gupta vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Respondents to demolish the unauthorized construction carried out by Respondent No. 2 at village Nagaon, House No. 853/2, Gaibinagar, Bhiwandi, District Thane. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Since the papers disclosed the inquiry conducted by the Planning authority, and it is ultimately the Planning authority which decides whether construction is authorized or not, the Court could dispose of the petition without waiting for service of notice on Respondent No. 2.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

It is the responsibility of the Planning authority to take action against unauthorized construction when a citizen has informed it of the unauthorized construction, particularly where it conducted an inquiry.

¶26

Key takeaways

A case for writ of mandamus was made out; Respondent No. 1 was to ascertain whether there is any legal impediment to demolishing the unauthorized construction.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Coram: M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.; per S. M. Modak, J.), by judgment dated 18th March 2026, allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 4127 of 2025 (Ashwini Kumar Gupta v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.). Respondent No. 2 had carried out unauthorized R.C.C. construction (Ground + 1st floor, with column work for the second slab) at village Nagaon, House No. 853/2, Gaibinagar, Bhiwandi, District Thane. The Corporation issued notices dated 30.07.2024 (Section 54, MRTP Act) and 29.08.2024 (Sections 52 to 55, MRTP Act; Section 260(1A)(a)(b), Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949); Respondent No. 2 failed to appear before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Ward No. 2, whose order dated 19.09.2024 found the construction was without permission and directed removal within 15 days at Respondent No. 2's cost, failing which removal with recovery of expenses. Alleging no further action despite his letter dated 02.12.2024, and referring to this Court's order in PIL No. 80 of 2013, the Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus. Holding that action against unauthorized construction is the Planning authority's responsibility once a citizen informs it, that ultimately the Planning authority decides whether construction is authorized, and that a case for mandamus was made out, the Court directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to demolish the construction described in the order dated 29.08.2024 after verifying absence of legal impediment, and permitted Respondent No. 1 to recover demolition expenses from Respondent No. 2 if he did not demolish at his own cost.

¶1

WP 4127 of 2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4127 OF 2025

¶4

Ashwini Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

¶8

Ms. Sadhna Singh - Advocate for the Petitioner Adv. Shraddha Pawar i/by Adv. Dilip Bodake - for the Respondent No. 1

¶9

¶10

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 18^th MARCH 2026

¶11

P. C. (PER S. M. MODAK, J.) :-

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court directed to issue notice to the Respondents as per order dated 26.03.2025. Respondent No. 1-Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation appeared through their learned advocate. Notice on Respondent No. 2 could not be served for want of sufficient address.

¶13

When we have heard learned advocate for the Petitioner and learned advocate for Respondent No. 1 and gone through the record, we find

¶14

Digitally signed SEEMAKSHITIJ by SEEMAKSHITIJYELKARDate: YELKAR 2026.04.0618:36:54 +0530

¶15

1/4

¶16

Seema

¶17

WP 4127 of 2025.doc

¶18

the petition can be disposed of by issuing necessary directions as sought by the Petitioner.

¶19

From the papers annexed to the petition, it is clear that there is notice issued by Respondent No. 1-Corporation to Respondent No. 2 by referring Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (In short, ‘MRTP’ Act) on 30.07.2024, thereby asking him to stop the construction, otherwise FIR will be lodged. There is further notice issued by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 dated 29.08.2024, by referring provisions of Section 52 to Section 55 of the MRTP Act and provisions of Section 260 (1A)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Respondent No. 2 was asked to produce the documents and appear before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Ward No. 2. He has not turned up.

¶20

Assistant Municipal Commissioner as per his order dated 19.09.2024 has observed construction was carried out without permission and hence he was asked to remove the construction at his own cost within 15 days, otherwise it will be removed and the expenses will be recovered from him. All this correspondence is preceded by the spot inspection report which records R.C.C. construction consisting of Ground + 1^st floor was carried out and the column work for erection of

¶21

2/4

¶22

Seema

¶23

WP 4127 of 2025.doc

¶24

second slab was noticed.

¶25

This construction was carried out at village Nagaon, House No. 853/2, Gaibinagar, Bhiwandi, District Thane, by Respondent No. 2. On this background, the Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to both the Respondents to demolish the unauthorized construction. He has referred about the order passed by this Court in PIL No. 80 of 2013 about action to be taken in respect of unauthorized construction carried out within the limits of Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation.

¶26

It is no doubt true it is responsibility of the Planning authority to take action against unauthorized construction, when the Petitioner who is citizen has informed about unauthorized construction to Respondent No. 1 and particularly when they conducted about unauthorized construction on the basis of inquiry. It is case of the Petitioner that in spite of order dated 19.09.2024 further action is not taken. Even he has brought it to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner and Assistant Municipal Commissioner as per his letter dated 02.12.2024.

¶27

We could have waited the service of notice on Respondent No. 2 but the papers annexed to the petition discloses about the inquiry

¶28

3/4

¶29

Seema

¶30

WP 4127 of 2025.doc

¶31

conducted by the Planning authority. Ultimately, it is Planning authority who has to decide whether construction is authorized or not.

¶32

So case for Writ of Mandamus is made out. Respondent No. 1 to ascertain, ‘whether there is any legal impediment for demolishing unauthorized construction?’.

¶33

Hence, the order :-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶36

(ii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to demolish unauthorized construction as described in the order dated 29.08.2024 as early as possible by verifying about absence of legal impediment in implementing their decision and demolish unauthorized construction.

¶37

(iii) If Respondent No. 2 will not demolish at his own cost, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the expenses of demolition from Respondent No. 2.

¶38

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

4/4

Seema

Ashwini Kumar Gupta v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Kumar Gupta v. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sameera Fernandes vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Nemi Krishna Cooperative Housing Society vs the Municipalcorporation for Greater Mumbai through Its Legal Department

Rekha Maruti Sathe vs the State of Maharashtra Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Thr. Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Aruna Subrato Banerjee vs State of Maharashtra, through the Government Pleader

Subhash Tukaram Patil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Ministry of Cooperation and Ors.

Anna Vaman Raje vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Agp and Ors.