NAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND PRIVATE LIMITED THR ITS DIRECTOR ND SIGNATORY JAI RAJESHversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THR THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

                                                                   15-AO-942-2026.DOC



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 942 OF 2026
                                 WITH
                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7402 OF 2026



Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited thr. Its Director
and Signatory Jay Rajesh                                     ...Appellant(s)

         Versus

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai thr.
The Municipal Commissioner and Another                   ...Respondent(s)
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Siddharth Singh, Mr. Ishan Sarvya, Ms. Swati Singh, Ms.
Muskan Palaskar i/b or h/f M/s. Kumar and Associates for the Appellant.
Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms. Komal Punajbi, Advocate for Respondent-BMC.
_________________________________________________________________

                      CORAM:               AARTI SATHE, J.

                      DATE:                28th SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C.

1.       This Appeal From Order has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against the order dated 10th September, 2026 passed

by the learned Bombay City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon,

Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in Notice of Motion No.

3053 of 2026 in Long Cause Suit No. 1856 of 2026 whereby the learned Trial

Court has dismissed the Appellant’s application seeking temporary injunction

against the Respondent-MCGM from acting upon and implementing the notice

dated 14th November, 2025 issued under Section 354A of the Municipal



                                  Page 1 of 6
Tiwari
                                                                    15-AO-942-2026.DOC



Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the “MMC Act”) and the

subsequent speaking order dated 19th August, 2026.

The brief facts are as follows.

i.       On 06th November, 1989, the architect of the Appellant submitted the

proposal/application seeking construction of the compound wall surrounding the

Appellant’s property. It is the Appellant’s contention that the Respondent-MCGM

granted the relevant permissions/No Objection Certificate (NOC) concerning the

proposed construction of the compound wall on 12 th December 1989 and the said

compound/boundary wall remained as existing on or around the Appellant’s

property. It is the Appellant’s case that the wall was not a fresh construction

undertaken in 2025.

ii.      On 14th November, 2025, the Respondent-MCGM issued a notice under

Section 354A of the MMC Act thereby directing that the Appellant had

undertaken unauthorized construction specifically in respect of (i) structure with

the help of MS Sections admeasuring approx. 20m Width x 60m Length, without

obtaining permission from competent authority. (ii) Laying of Cement Concrete on

open plot admeasuring approx. 20m Width x 60m Length, without obtaining

permission from competent authority. (iii) Unauthorized construction of

compound wall with the help of Brick Masonry and Cement Concrete

admeasuring approx. Length 190m, without obtaining permission from the

competent authority (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned notice”). The

Respondent-MCGM also conducted a survey of the property and photographs

were taken in respect of the unauthorized construction/structure.



                                  Page 2 of 6
Tiwari
                                                                      15-AO-942-2026.DOC



iii.     In response to the aforesaid notice, the Appellant replied by their letter

dated 18th November, 2025 and sought to place reliance on relevant documents to

contend that no unauthorized construction/structure had been carried out by the

Appellant.

iv)      By a speaking order dated 19th August, 2026 the Respondent-MCGM after

considering the documents which had been placed on record held that the said

documents did not prove the permission for the ongoing work and hence,

considering the aforesaid it was directed that the Appellant to discontinue the use

of the construction/structure mentioned in the notice dated 14 th November 2025

and pull down the unauthorized work mentioned in the aforesaid notice within

seven days from the receipt of the notice failing which the same would be

demolished by the Respondent-MCGM entirely at the cost of the Appellant

(hereinafter referred to as the “impugned speaking order”)

v.       Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant instituted Long Cause Suit

No. 1856 of 2026 before the Trial Court, inter alia, seeking protection against the

impugned notice and the impugned speaking order and seeking temporary

injunction restraining the Respondents from acting/implementing the impugned

notice dated 14th November, 2025 and impugned speaking order dated 19 th

August, 2026.

vi.      The Trial Court by an order dated 10 th September, 2026 after perusal of the

records, impugned notice, impugned speaking order and the photographs has come

to the conclusion that the Appellant in the present case has erected the

unauthorized construction/structure without permission of the Respondent-



                                    Page 3 of 6
Tiwari
                                                                          15-AO-942-2026.DOC



MCGM. The Trial Court has also held that the Appellants had no right to erect the

aforesaid construction/structure and further that the Appellants have not brought

on record any document to show that the property mentioned in the impugned

notice was reserved for play ground or sports activities. The Trial Court also held

that the Appellant’s contention that there was delay caused by the Respondent-

MCGM in passing the impugned speaking order is without any merit and is liable

to be rejected.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the parties. The primary contention of learned

counsel on behalf of the Appellant is that the order of the Trial Court suffers from

infirmities and has not been passed after appreciating the evidence on record and

particularly the fact that the structure mentioned in the impugned notice was a play

ground and that necessary permissions had been taken by the Appellant to

construct the aforesaid compound wall. He sought to place reliance on the

permission dated 12th December, 1989 to contend that necessary permissions had

been granted prior to the construction of the aforesaid compound wall. He also

submitted that considering the aforesaid permission was taken, the notice under

Section 354A of the MMC Act and the subsequent impugned speaking order

which was passed belatedly is an order which is liable to be set aside.

3.       Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-MCGM

has supported the findings as made by the Trial Court and has submitted that the

Respondent-MCGM has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 354A of the

MMC Act. She has submitted that, in fact, Section 354A of the MMC Act is a

provision which is available to the Respondent-MCGM in respect of structures



                                   Page 4 of 6
Tiwari
                                                                                    15-AO-942-2026.DOC



which have been unlawfully commenced and for which no permission has been

produced within 24 hours from the service of the notice and in view thereof,

Respondent-MCGM is well within its rights to pull down the aforesaid structure

mentioned in the impugned notice. The relevant provisions of Section 354A of the

MMC Act are reproduced below:-

         354A. Power of [Designated Officer] to stop erection of building or work
         commenced or carried on unlawfully.
         (1) If the [Designated Officer) is satisfied that the erection of any building or the
         execution of any such work as is described in section 342 has been unlawfully
         commenced or is being unlawfully carried on upon any premises, the [Designated
         Officer] may, by written notice, require the person erecting such building or
         executing such work to stop such erection or work [forthwith].
         (2) If the erection of the building or execution of the work is not stopped as
         required by the Designated Officer), or permission approved by the competent
         authority in favour of the erection of the building or execution of the work is not
         produced within twenty-four hours from the service of notice referred to in sub-
         section (1), the [Designated Officer] may, without further notice, remove or pull
         down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the said
         person or owner of the building or work. The Designated Officer) may also direct
         that any person directing or carrying out such erection or work shall be removed
         by any police officer from the place where the building, is being erected or the
         work is being executed.]
         (3) In addition to the action that the Designated Officer) may take under sub-
         section (2), he may, without further notice, cause to be removed any materials,
         machinery, equipment, devices or articles used in the process of erection of the
         building or execution of such work.
         (4) If the expenses incurred by the Designated Officer) under sub-section (2) and
         (3) are not paid within one month from the date of demand, such sum as remains
         unpaid shall be treated, as arrears of property tax and the procedure prescribed
         under this Act for recovery of arrears of property tax shall, mutatis mutandis,
         apply to the recovery of such unpaid sum.


4.       After hearing the parties for some time and after perusing the papers,

impugned notice, impugned order and Trial Court’s order which is under

challenge, I am of the view that the Trial Court’s order does not warrant any

interference and has been passed after considering all the documents and facts on

record. The Trial Court has rightly come to the prima facie view that the structure

is an unauthorized structure. The argument of the Appellant that the delay caused


                                          Page 5 of 6
Tiwari
                                                                         15-AO-942-2026.DOC



by the Respondent-MCGM for passing the impugned speaking order is also

without any merit and is liable to be rejected. Further, learned counsel on behalf of

the Appellant, on instructions, fairly submitted that the Appellant is willing to

demolish/remove the unauthorized construction/structure which is described in

the impugned notice dated 14th November, 2025 and impugned speaking order

dated 19th August, 2026 within a period of one week from the date of this order.

5.       This Court is of the view that considering the aforesaid statement by learned

counsel on behalf of the Appellant, no further adjudication of the present Appeal

from Order is required. In the event, the aforesaid compliance of removal of the

unauthorized construction/structure as described in the impugned notice dated

14th November, 2025 is not done by the Appellant within a period of one week

from today, then the Respondent-MCGM is at a liberty to remove/demolish the

unauthorized construction/structure as described in the impugned notice dated

14th November, 2025.

6.       The Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the Long Cause Suit No. 1856

of 2026 in view of the aforesaid finding within a period of four weeks from today.

7.       Appeal from Order is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

8.       Interim Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.




                                                       (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                     Page 6 of 6
Tiwari