Bombay High Court
ROMELL REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR JUDE ROMELLversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OG GREATER MUMBAI(MCGM) THROUGH ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court will not determine title but directs the Municipal Corporation to examine the petitioner’s representations and take appropriate legal action, after hearing respondent No.7.
Summary
Romella Real Estate Private Limited filed a writ petition alleging that structures on CTS Nos. 1379, 1379/1 to 1379/6 in Santacruz (East) are illegal and that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and a third respondent (No.7) have either failed to demolish or have reconstructed unauthorized buildings. The corporation contended that the illegal structure had already been demolished, while the petitioner claimed that respondent No.7 erected a new unauthorized structure and disputed ownership. The court held that it would not decide the title dispute, which must be pursued in a civil suit, but directed the corporation to consider the petitioner’s representations dated January and April 2023 and to take action in accordance with law, ensuring that respondent No.7 is given a hearing. Keeping all contentions open, the court disposed of the petition without granting any specific relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the structures on the specified CTS numbers constitute illegal/unauthorized constructions.
- Whether the High Court can order remedial action without adjudicating the underlying title dispute.
- Whether the Municipal Corporation is obligated to act on the petitioner’s representations and provide a hearing to respondent No.7.
Subjects
- illegal construction
- municipal corporation
- unauthorized structure
- land title dispute
- writ petition
- representations
- civil proceeding
- demolition
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUPALI 46-WP-1733-2026.doc
RUPALI RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
2026.08.19
11:32:38
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1733 OF 2024
Romella Real Estate Private Limited
Through Its Director Jude Romell ...Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM) Through Its
Municipal Commissioner & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Shon Gadgil for the Petitioner.
Smt. Nazia Sheikh, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Shridhar Patil (Through VC) a/w Mr. Bibhishan Sutar i/b
Adv.Komal Punjabi for the Respondent – BMC.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.7 appeared.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner assures that a copy of the writ
petition will be served on the respondent No.7 in the course of this
Wakodikar 1/3
46-WP-1733-2026.doc
week. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, to be filed by the respondent No.7
within a period of two weeks from today.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner restricts his relief to prayer clause (a) for
the present. The contention of the petitioner is that the structure in
question on CTS Nos. 1379, 1379/1 to 1379/6 at Village Kolekalyan
– Vakola, Opp. P & T Colony, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055, is
illegal.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent – Corporation
submits that the illegal structure has been demolished. However,
learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.7
has constructed an unauthorized structure after demolition. Learned
Counsel for the respondent No.7 requested for some time to file
reply. It is submitted that the respondent No.7 is disputing the
ownership of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the respondent
No.7 that the suit has been filed by her in the Dindoshi Court which
Wakodikar 2/3
46-WP-1733-2026.doc
is pending.
4. We are not deciding on the issues of title as it is for the
parties to resort to appropriate civil proceeding. What we are
concerned with is the allegations made by the petitioner that the
unauthorized structures are constructed upon land bearing CTS Nos.
1379, 1379/1 to 1379/6, over which the petitioner claims to have
interest. Since the Representations dated 10 th January, 2023, 16th
January, 2023 and 10th April, 2023 are already preferred, we only
direct the respondent – Corporation to look into these
Representations and take appropriate action thereof in accordance
with law. Obviously, if any adverse action is to be taken, the
respondent No.7 shall have to be duly heard.
5. Keeping all contentions of all parties open, the petition is
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.