Bombay High Court
MAVJI RAVJI PATELversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed with an order to maintain status quo until the regularization proceedings are concluded, subject to the submission of a scientific/expert report.
Summary
Mavji Ravji Patel filed a writ petition challenging the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's action regarding a construction that allegedly required regularization. The respondents argued that the matter was already under cognizance per section 53(1) of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and that the owner had applied for regularization supported by the corporation's regulations. The Court, noting an interim order, directed that the regularization claim be processed with a scientific or expert report and that the petitioner be heard at that stage. The petition was disposed, with the Court ordering the parties to maintain the status quo pending final disposal of the regularization proceedings. The decision emphasizes procedural compliance under the BMC Act and the need for expert evidence before regularization.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner's claim for regularization of construction falls within the cognizance of the BMC under section 53(1) of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief pending the regularization process and the requirement of an expert report
Legislation cited
- Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 53(1)
Subjects
- regularization
- municipal corporation
- construction
- status quo
- expert report
- writ petition
- BMC Act
Judgment
36.WP.1305.2025.doc
ANANT
KRISHNA
NAIK
Digitally signed by
ANANT KRISHNA
NAIK
Date: 2026.09.22
11:25:21 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1305 OF 2025
Mavji Ravji Patel … Petitioner
V/s.
Municipal Corporation Of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b. Mr. Bharat Joshi for Petitioner.
Mr. Chaitanya Chavhan a/w. Ms Sheeetal Metakari i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for
Respondent-BMC
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP. for Respondent No.9-State.
Mr. Drupad Patil i/b. Shivraj Patne a/w. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi for the Respondent
No.10.
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. In response to the Order dated 21 st April, 2025 the parties appeared before
us. Learned Counsel for the Respondent - BMC submits that the cognizance has
already been taken under section 53(1) of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the BMC Act”).
2. Learned Counsel who appears for the Respondent No. 10-Owner submits
that he has already received the Notice and also applied for regularization under
the regulations/policies as enunciated by the Corporation.
3. Considering the Interim Order as accorded by this Court, we expect the
proceedings must be finalized expeditiously. Suffice to indicate that in case the
issue of regularization of the construction as raised by the Respondent No. 10-
Owner, the same may also be processed but certainly at that stage, the Petitioner
AKN 1
36.WP.1305.2025.doc
may also be heard. The claim for regularization, must be backed by some
scientific/expert report.
4. The Writ Petition is Disposed Of in the above terms.
5. We direct that until disposal of the proceedings as indicated above, parties
shall maintain status quo as granted by the earlier Order of this Court dated 21 st
April, 2025 (supra).
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
AKN 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.