Bombay High Court
SRICHAND KANOJIA SON OF RAMHARAK PRASAD KANOJIA AND ANOTHERversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THR. ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appeal is disposed without adjudicating the merits as it is premature and no further adjudication is required.
Summary
The appellants, Srichand and Ramharak Kanojia, obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in May 2017 to repair their tenement (CTS No.4947‑A) and completed the work in May 2019. MCGM later cancelled the permission in September 2020 and issued a show‑cause notice in July 2021 alleging that the appellants had encroached 1.5 metres onto adjacent CTS No.4949 and ordered removal of the alleged encroachment. The appellants filed a suit and sought interim relief, which the City Civil Court rejected, prompting an appeal against the order dated 21 August 2021. MCGM submitted an affidavit stating that no further action would be taken without a fresh show‑cause notice under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988, and that the appeal was premature. The High Court held that the appeal was premature and that no further adjudication on the merits was required, disposing of the appeal and the interim applications. The court directed the trial court to decide the pending suit expeditiously within four months, keeping all contentions open.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal from the order dated 21 August 2021 is maintainable in view of MCGM's affidavit stating that no further steps will be taken without a fresh show‑cause notice under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- encroachment
- repair permission
- municipal corporation
- show cause notice
- appeal from order
- interim relief
- due process
Judgment
1 of 4 6.AO.221.2021.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.221 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2911 OF 2021
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2085 OF 2021
1. Srichand Kanojia,
2. Ramharak Prasad Kanojia,
R/o.Mumbai. Appellants
versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
through Municipal Commissioner.
2. The Designated Officr, H/East Ward, MCGM. Respondents
_______
Mr.Rajkumar Awasthi i/by Shukla & Associates for Appellants.
Mr.Jatin Sheth with Mr.Ankur Shah and Ms.Rhea Anthony for Intervenors.
Mr.Dharmesh Vyas with Ms.Smita Tondwalkar i/by Ms.Komal Punjabi for
Respondent-MCGM.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 6th October 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order has been filed challenging the order dated 21 st
August 2021 passed by City Civil Court, Mumbai (`Trial Court’) in draft Notice of
Motion in L.C.Suit (St.) No.5406 of 2021wbereby the Trial Court has rejected
interim relief sought for by the Appellants.
2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. On 15 th May 2017 the
MANISH
Digitally signed
by MANISH
SURESHRAO
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM’) granted repair permission
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.10.07
16:15:46 +0530
to the suit premises. The Appellants on 24 th May 2019 completed the repairs and
M.S.Thatte
2 of 4 6.AO.221.2021.DOC
the same was inspected by MCGM. On 10 th September 2020, MCGM cancelled
the repair permission and thereafter the Appellants filed L.C.Suit No.1439 of 2020
before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. It is the Appellants’ contention that the
MCGM officer has stated that the MCGM has not cancelled the repair permission.
3. On 3rd July 2021, MCGM issued a show cause notice seeking an
explanation in respect of the repairs to the suit premises and categorically requiring
the Appellants to show cause as to why the Appellants had encroached upon by 1.5
meter in CTS No.4949 and repaired their tenement, when permission to repair
was granted to the tenement of Appellant on CTS No.4947-A. Thereafter the
Designated Officer of the MCGM passed an order holding that the Appellants’
contentions are contrary to the inspection report and held that 1.5 meter part of the
suit premises of CTSNo.4949 was unauthorized and abutting on the boundary
demarcation. The Designated Officer therefore directed the Appellants to remove
the encroachment construction. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellants
filed L.C.Suit (St) No.5406 of 2021 and also filed Notice of Motion for urgent ad-
interim reliefs. The Appellants produced photocopy of CTS map and submitted
that as the permission for repair was granted, the impugned notice 3 rd July 2021
and order dated 17th August 2021 passed by MCGM was illegal. By the impugned
order dated 21st August 2021, the Trial Court rejected interim relief and aggrieved
by the said order the Appellants have filed the present Appeal from Order.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Appellants that insofar as
alleged encroachment is concerned, the same is in respect of road which was to be
completed by MCGM. He has submitted that as of today the said road has been
M.S.Thatte
3 of 4 6.AO.221.2021.DOC
completed by MCGM. Learned counsel for Appellants further has brought to the
notice of this Court an order passed by the Supreme Court in another proceeding
of another co-operative housing society in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.803 of
2023 in Civil Appeal No.1658 of 2020 wherein the MCGM had filed an affidavit
submitting that the road work has been completed. He, therefore, submitted that
considering the aforesaid position, there was no necessity for the MCGM to take
any steps and in view thereof, the impugned order passed by MCGM ought to be
set aside.
5. Learned counsel for MCGM has sought to place reliance on the
affidavit filed by one Kishore Honaji Yerme, the Designated Officer of MCGM,
H/East Ward dated 27th October 2021 wherein in paragraph no.11 it has been
categorically submitted that the MCGM is not contemplating to take any further
steps in pursuance to the letter dated 3 rd July 2021 and 17th August 2021 without
following due process of law i.e. without issuing show cause notice under the
provisions laid down in Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. Paragraph 11
of the said affidavit is reproduced below :
“11. I further say and submit that present Appeal from Order is premature and has
no cause of action accrued to the appellant for filing present Appeal from Order. I
say and submit that Respondent MCGM is not contemplating to take any further
steps in pursuance to letter dated 3rd July, 2021 and 17th August 2021 without
following the due process of law i.e. without issuing show cause notice under the
provisions laid down in Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.”
6. Considering that the present Appeal from Order challenges the
impugned order dated 21st August 2021 which has been passed in pursuance of the
letters dated 3rd July 2021 and 17th August 2021 and considering the aforesaid
categorical submission made by the Designated Officer of MCGM, this Court is of
M.S.Thatte
4 of 4 6.AO.221.2021.DOC
the view that no further adjudication is required in respect of the present Appeal
from Order.
7. It is also made clear that this Court has not delved into the merits of the
matter or expressed any prima facie view in respect of the subject matter of dispute
in the present Appeal from Order. It is open for the MCGM in view of the
aforesaid submission made in the affidavit of the Designated Officer, to issue fresh
show cause notice in respect of the alleged encroachment made by the Appellants
on CTS No.4949.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal from Order is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms. No costs. Interim Applications also do not survive and stand
disposed of.
9. The Trial Court is directed to decide the L.C.Suit filed by the
Appellants as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four
months from today. All contentions of the parties in respect thereto are expressly
kept open. No adjournments shall be sought by the parties at the hearing of the
suit.
10. Needless to observe that this Court has not dealt with any issue raised
in the Appeal from Order nor has formed any opinion.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.