Bombay High Court
MR. MOHD HAMID KHANversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court stayed the trial court's order, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000 per month pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Mr. Mohd Hamid Khan, filed a civil application seeking a stay of the City Civil Court's order that dismissed his suit challenging a notice issued under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The trial court had held that the appellant failed to prove that his approximately 2,500 square‑foot commercial structure was legal. The High Court considered that if the structure were later found legal, demolition would cause irreversible loss, whereas if the notice were justified, the appellant would have continued illegal use of the premises since July 2012. Accordingly, the Court stayed the impugned order subject to the appellant depositing Rs.50,000 per month for the period from the notice date to the present and continuing the same deposit from 1 April 2026 until the appeal is disposed. The deposited sums are to be placed in a fixed deposit and will be allocated based on the final outcome of the appeal. The application was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the City Civil Court dismissing the suit challenging the Section 55 notice should be stayed
- Whether the appellant is required to deposit compensation pending final determination of the legality of the commercial structure
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Section 55
- MRTP Act
- stay of execution
- interim relief
- commercial structure
- municipal corporation
Judgment
29---CAF-3093-19.doc
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3093 OF 2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1368 OF 2019
Mr. Mohd Hamid Khan … Applicant- Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation For
Greater Mumbai ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Shrinath Dubey for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w. Mr. Heramb Kadam and Mr. Malhar Bageshwar
for Applicant in IA No.2700 of 2021.
Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for Respondent No.1-BMC.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 28 JANUARY 2026
P. C.:
1. This application is taken out by the applicant/appellant seeking
stay of the impugned order dated 20 July 2019 passed by City Civil
Court, Mumbai whereby the suit filed by the applicant/appellant
challenging notice under Section 55 of the MRTP Act was dismissed on
the ground that the applicant/appellant has failed to prove by
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
documents that the commercial suit structure of approximately 2500
SUBODH KARVE
KARVE Date:
2026.01.29
10:36:55
+0530
square feet is legal.
2. Admittedly, as of today the order of the Trial Court is against the
applicant/appellant. However, if the suit structure is demolished and
ultimately it is found that the structure was legal then the damage
1 of 3
29---CAF-3093-19.doc
would be irreversible. However, if at the end of the day it is found that
notice under Section 55 was justified and the appeal stands dismissed
then in that case the applicant/appellant has continued to use
approximately 2500 square ft for commercial purpose illegally from
atleast the date of notice dated 26 July 2012 under Section 55 of MRTP
Act. Therefore keeping in mind the equity of both the sides, the
impugned order and the notice is stayed subject to following order:
a) Applicant/appellant to deposit Rs.50000/- per month from 26
July 2012 till today in this Court within eight weeks from today;
b) Applicant/appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month in this
Court starting from 1 April 2026 till the disposal of the appeal;
c) The amount deposited above to be invested by the Registry
in the Fixed Deposit and the said amount will be subject to the
outcome of the appeal;
d) If there is a default in making any of the above payment at
any time within the time prescribed herein then the interim relief
will stand vacated forthwith. No extension will be granted for
deposit of the money in any circumstances;
e) The appeal Court will decide at the end of the final disposal
as to the party or authority to whom above compensation should
be granted.
2 of 3
29---CAF-3093-19.doc
3. Civil Application No.3093 of 2019 is disposed of.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
3 of 3
Checking your session…