LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI versus THOMAS MATHEW & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2012] 5 S.C.R. 218 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI v. THOMAS MATHEW & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3417 of 2012) APRIL 09, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - s. 314 - Illegal demolition - Issuance of notice by the Municipal Corporation C uls. 314 to occupants directing them to demolish reconstructed structure on the site which was earlier demolished by the Municipal Corporation - Suit filed by the occupants against the Municipal Corporation - Thereafter, Municipal Corporation demolished the unauthorized structure D in public interest - Trial court holding that the Municipal Corporation could not place any materials in support of its claim that the property in dispute belongs to them and the structure put up by the occupants is unauthorized - Suit decreed partly declaring that the notice issued was illegal and E occupants allowed to reconstruct the said structure as it was prior to the demolition at their own cost - Appeal filed by the Corporation - Said order upheld by the High Court with certain modifications - Appeal before Supreme Court - Municipal Corporation though did not file any material before the Courts F below but filing certain documents as additional evidence before Supreme Court claiming to be owners of the property - Held: There is no need to go into these materials at this juncture considering the alternative direction issued by the High Court granting alternative site to the occupants which is G quite reasonable - If the Corporation wants to keep the site open, in public interest, they are bound to comply with the direction with the stipulated time period - Such a conclusion is arrived at because there was inaction on the part of the officers of the Corporation before the courts below. H 218 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI 219 v. THOMAS MATHEW & ORS. Appellant-Corporation issued notice under Section A 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to respondent who were in occupation of patra structures constructed on foot paths and streets and directed them to remove the said patra sheds. On mm-compliance of the direction, the Municipal Corporatioa demolished the B unauthorized structures. Thereafter, the Corporation issued notice under Section 354 A directing the respondents to stop the erection of structure/execution of the work. The respondents filed a suit cliallenging the said notice .. The Civil Judge restrained the Corporation c from taking_· any action in pursuance of issuance of the notice under Section 354A till filing its reply affidavit in the suit. The said injunction order was discontinued later and thereafter, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Meanwhile, the Corporation issued another notice u/s 314 0 of the Act directing the respondents to demolish the reconstructed structure of the very site which was demolished by the Corporation earlier. The respondents filed another suit challenging the said notice. Thereafter, the Corporation demolished the una1.tthorized suit structure and justified its action as taken in public interest E in its written statement. The Civil Judge holding that the Corporation was not in position to place any material in support of its claim that the property in dispute belongs F to the Corporation and the structure put up by the respondents is unauthorized, partly decreed the suit declaring that notice was illegal and allowed the respondents to reconstruct the said structure as it was prior to the demolition at their own cost. The Corporation filed first appeal. The High Court upheld the decree passed by the trial court with certain modifications. G Therefore, the appellant-Corporation filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 5 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 Though counsel for the appellant insisted that in view of the fact that the suit structure (shops) situate on the road margin which belongs to the appellant-Corporation, admittedly the said stand was not substantiated either before the trial court or the High B Court by placing any documentary evidence. In fact, the trial judge, in his judgment, pointed that in the year 1996, when the affidavit in reply filed in the earlier suit not to take action without following due process of law, the Municipal Corporation never stated that the suit premises C is falling on the road and also denied that they ever
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.