Bombay High Court
SOHAIL RAIMANversusMUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the appellants' applications, as the planning authority's decision under Section 55 is final and the appellants failed to establish the requisite grounds for interim relief.
Summary
The appellants, owners of 24 flats in the Universal Garden building, challenged a notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorized enclosure of balconies. They sought interim relief to prevent removal of the structures, claiming the alterations were made by the developer before possession and that the inspection report was defective. The trial court dismissed their notices of motion, finding no prima facie case and holding that the planning authority's decision on what constitutes temporary development is final. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the trial court's view, noting that the enclosed balconies are not in accordance with the sanctioned plans and that the appellants failed to satisfy the three‑pronged test for interim relief. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated, with a temporary stay of the order for six weeks pending any application to the competent authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice issued by MMRDA under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is valid despite alleged procedural deficiencies.
- Whether the appellants have established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to obtain interim relief.
- Whether the decision of the planning authority on what constitutes temporary development is final and not reviewable by the court.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 149, 55
Subjects
- unauthorised construction
- Section 55
- planning authority
- interim relief
- balcony enclosure
- public safety
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- MMRDA
- regularisation
Judgment
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 669 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13276 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 669 OF 2024
Munna Noor Mohammad Solanki ... Appellant
V/s.
Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
Development Authority ... Respondent
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 679 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13318 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 679 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 680 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13320 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 680 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 682 OF 2024
WITH
AMOL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13327 OF 2024
PREMNATH IN
JADHAV
APPEAL FROM ORDER 682 OF 2024
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH WITH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.05.06
12:06:12 +0530 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 681 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13323 OF 2024
IN
Page 1 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 681 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 686 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13347 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 686 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 677 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13299 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 677 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 672 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13279 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 672 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 678 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13314 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 678 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 673 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13288 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 673 OF 2024
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 675 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13294 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 675 OF 2024
Page 2 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 676 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13296 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 676 OF 2024
______________________________________
Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Irshad Shariff, Mr. Suhail Shariff
& Ms. Revaa Kadam i/b Falcon Legal for the Appellant.
Mr. Akshay P. Shinde for the Respondent - MMRDA.
Mr. Sachin Vajale a/w Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the
Respondent - MCGM.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 28th APRIL 2026
P.C.:
1. By consent of parties, the Appeals are taken up for final hearing at the
stage of admission.
2. The present 12 Appeals challenge 12 separate orders, all dated 20 th
August 2024 (impugned order) passed by the Trial Court in 12
separate Notices of Motion taken out by 12 separate
Appellants/original Plaintiffs in the Trial Court in 12 separate suits
filed in/about 2023 inter alia seeking protective reliefs against and
challenging a common notice dated 8 th November 2023 (said notice)
issued by the Respondent / original Defendant/Mumbai Metropolitan
Page 3 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
Region Development Authority (MMRDA) under Section 55 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (said Act) in
respect of unauthorized construction in separate residential flats of 24
flat owners of Universal Garden building, A-Wing, situated on Sufi
Sayyed Kamal Road, Amrut Nagar, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai 400102
(suit flat). By the impugned order passed on 20th August 2024, the
Trial Court dismissed the 12 separate Notices of Motion that were
preferred by the Appellants/Original Plaintiffs declining to grant any
interim reliefs, as sought therein.
3. In addition to these 12 suits (in which the impugned orders have been
passed), 6 other flat purchasers (out of the 24 flat purchasers to whom
the said notice was issued by MMRDA) have also approached the Trial
Court, albeit in/around 2025, seeking similar reliefs, as sought by their
12 neighbors. However, considering the impugned order dated 20 th
August 2024 that was already passed in the matter, the same Trial
Court has refused ad-interim reliefs to the said 6 flat purchasers, who
have also impugned the said order dated 24 th February 2025 before
this Court. All 18 flat purchasers (12 + 6 = 18) Appellants are
represented by the same set of advocates and counsel. The
Respondent/MMRDA is also represented by the same set of advocates
and counsel. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, all 18 Appeals
Page 4 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
have been heard together and whilst the present order deals with and
disposes of the said 12 Appeals, the remaining 6 Appeals (which
impugn the ad interim order dated 24 th February 2025) are dealt with
and disposed of by a separate common order, also of today’s date.
4. Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned Senior Advocate who appears on behalf of
the Appellants points out that the said notice is motivated and issued
by the Respondent/MMRDA at the behest of the Developer to cause
harassment to his clients. He further points out that the Developer had
obtained the Intimation of Disapproval and Commencement
Certificate as far as in 2009 and 2010 and completed the construction
of the building in 2013/2014, after which the Occupancy Certificate
was also obtained on 21st February 2014. Mr. Shah points out that the
Inspection Report dated 26th October 2023 on which the said notice is
based, was not prepared in accordance with law inasmuch as, the
Inspection Officer did not inspect all the flats which belong to his
clients. He invites my attention to his client’s reply dated 1 st December
2023 in response thereto. He further contends that the unauthorized
construction referred to in the said notice was not carried out by his
client, but was in fact undertaken by the Developer prior to handing
over possession of the flat. He submits that, given the similarity of the
unauthorized construction across other flats in the building, it is
Page 5 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
evident that the same was carried out by the Developer and not by the
individual occupants.
5. Lastly, and without prejudice to his main submissions, he submits that
if for any reason, this Court were not inclined to accept his main
submission/s, time ought to be given to his clients to regularize the
alleged unauthorized construction since the same is within their
residential flats which is occupied by them since more than 10 years.
He therefore submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court which dismissed his clients’ Notices of Motion which sought
interim protection against the said notice is required to be interfered
with by this Court.
6. As against this, Mr. Akshay Shinde, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent/MMRDA, submits that the sanctioned
building plan provides for a pergola structure, which is essentially of a
hollow nature, and that the same has been structurally altered by the
members of the Society by using grills, glass, bricks, etc., in violation
thereof by enclosing the balconies on floor nos. 19 to 22 by 24 flat
owners. He therefore submits that the said notice under Section 55 of
the said Act has been suitably issued against the Appellants.
7. He further points out that considering the nature of the unauthorized
Page 6 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
construction, namely, enclosing of the balcony which is outside the
building line, it also poses a hazard and risk to the public at large,
including passers-by in the vicinity of the building. He submits that
this authorised construction was detected by his clients’ officers during
a survey that was conducted by them and which violation is plainly
and clearly visible to any person from the public road. He accordingly
submits that the action of the Respondent/MMRDA is of a larger
public interest and also considering the safety of the inhabitants. He
submits that the Respondent/MMRDA being the Planning Authority
has thus passed the impugned order exercising the jurisdiction vested
in it under Section 55 of the said Act and under Section 149 thereof,
no such order can be challenged in a civil court unless it is
demonstrated as ‘perverse.’ This has not been successfully established
in the present case and therefore, the impugned order has correctly
rejected the reliefs sought by the Appellants/original Plaintiffs and
declined to interfere with the said notice.
8. Lastly, in response to the without prejudice submission made by the
Appellants, he submits that there is no question of regularization,
since there is no provision for the same, under the said Act. He
therefore submits that no interference in the impugned order is
warranted by this Court.
Page 7 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
9. I have heard the parties and perused the record before this Court. It is
not in dispute that under Section 55 of the said Act, the decision of the
Planning Authority (in the present case, the Respondent/MMRDA) on
the question of what constitutes development of a temporary nature, is
final and hence, it is not open to the Appellants to question the same
before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the said provision
is reproduced hereunder:
“55. Removal or discontinuance of unauthorised
temporary development summarily —
(1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this
Chapter, where any person has carried out any development of a
temporary nature unauthorisedly as indicated in sub-section (1) of
section 52, the Planning Authority may by an order in writing
direct that person to remove any structure or work erected, or
discontinue the use of land made, unauthorisedly as aforesaid,
within #fteen days of the receipt of the order; and if thereafter,
the person does not comply with the order within the said period,
the Planning Authority may request the District Magistrate or the
Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, 5 [or authorise any
of its o)cers or servants,] to have such work summarily removed
or such use summarily discontinued without any notice as
directed in the order; and any development unauthorisedly made
again, shall be similarly removed or discontinued summarily
without making any order as aforesaid.
(2) The decision of the Planning Authority on the question of what
is development of a temporary nature shall be #nal.”
10. Hence, the only issue that was required to be considered by the Trial
Court was whether the alleged unauthorized construction in the suit
flats (enclosing of the balcony of the pergola like structure) situated
on the 19th – 24th floors in the A-Wing of the Universal Garden building
Page 8 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
was in accordance with the sanctioned/approved plans.
11. A perusal of the sanctioned building plans would reveals that the
flower bed structure is located outside the suit flats and that the same
is a pergola structure which is hollow. However, as on date, admittedly,
the said balcony structure has been enclosed by using grills, glass,
bricks, etc. Photographs that are placed on record clearly reveal this
position. There is not and cannot be any dispute on this position, even
from the flat owners since they contend that such construction was
done by the Developer prior to handing over the said flats to them
in/about 2014.
12. The Trial Court has correctly appreciated the documents placed before
it and rendered a finding that the Appellants had failed to establish
that the notice structure (unauthorized construction) is as per the
sanctioned/approved plans. The Trial Court has also recorded that
pursuant to the said notice issued by the Respondent/MMRDA, all the
flat purchasers were given an opportunity to submit their response/s
thereto, together with supporting documentary evidence, if any, which
was not produced by them and hence, natural justice could not be said
to be violated in not giving each flat purchaser an individual hearing.
Even today, the Appellants have not been able to successfully
Page 9 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
demonstrate the authenticity of the notice structure.
13. The Respondent/MMRDA had placed the Inspection Report on the
record before the Trial Court which established that site inspection
was carried out on 26th October 2023 prior to the issuance of the said
notice under Section 55 of the said Act. As already recorded above, the
existence of the notice structure is not denied by the flat
purchasers/Appellants and under such circumstances, when the notice
structure is visible from the public road, as can also been seen from
the photographs filed before the Court, merely because each individual
suit flat may not have been inspected prior to the issuance of the said
notice, would not, as correctly held in the impugned order, vitiate
and/or invalidate the Inspection Report which, coincidently was
produced and relied upon by the flat purchasers themselves.
14. Considering the above, the Trial Court has, in my view, correctly
recorded and held that the Appellant has failed to make out the three-
pronged test required to be satisfied by a party who approaches the
Court and seeks interim reliefs, namely, prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss. The Trial Court has also considered
the decision of this Court in Abdul Rasheed Khan V/s. Brihanmumbai
Mahanagar Palika1.
1 Appeal (L) no. 475/2018 in WP/1422/2008 decided on 24th October 2008.
Page 10 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
15. Mr. Shah has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned
order which would persuade any interference from this Court and
accordingly, I am of the considered view that the impugned order has
been correctly passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and
does not warrant any interference.
16. Accordingly, the present Appeals are without any merit and are
disposed of. All pending Interim Applications taken out in the present
Appeals from Order, if any, also stand disposed of in terms of this
order, and all interim orders passed therein, if any, also stand vacated.
17. After this order was dictated in open Court, the Appellants seek a stay
of this order since they are desirous of testing the same in appeal.
They further contend that notwithstanding the submissions of the
Respondent/MMRDA to the contrary, the notice structures are capable
of being regularized, and they inform this Court that they would prefer
an application to that effect before the appropriate Competent
Authority. If such application is preferred, the same shall be
appropriately dealt with and disposed of by the Authority, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event,
within a period of 4 weeks from the date on which it is made.
Considering the above, the present order is stayed for a period of 6
Page 11 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
903-AO-669-2024
Munna Noor Vs. MMRDA
weeks from the date it is uploaded on the website of this Court.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Amol
Page 12 of 12
-------------------------------------
Order dated 28th April 2026
Checking your session…