MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) for its demolition notices targeting six longstanding residents of Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl in Mulund (East), categorizing the actions as “vague, arbitrary, malafide, and a misuse of power.”
Justice Milind N Jadhav, in a ruling made on January 5, 2026, granted six Appeals From Orders filed by the residents: Anita Ashok Mapuskar, Amol Pandharinath Vedak, Manik Gajanan Thakur, Rajkumar Gamandas Ramchandani, Pushpalata Pandurang Ale, and Sudhir Sambhaji Jadhav. The court provided them absolute protection from any coercive measures from the BMC until their civil suits are resolved. This case arose from notices issued on March 15, 2025, under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, which labeled the residents’ homes as “unauthorized constructions” and instructed them to either regularize or remove the allegedly illegal portions.
The residents responded on March 27, 2025, affirming the legality of their homes and emphasizing that the structures had been in existence for over sixty years.
Nonetheless, the Designated Officer issued identical orders on April 29, 2025, dismissing their claims without a proper hearing or consideration of their documentary evidences. After the trial court denied interim relief on May 19, 2025, the residents escalated the matter to the High Court.
Justice Jadhav highlighted that the appellants occupied independent residential rooms ranging from 100 to 200 sq ft in a “baithi chawl” established by the Mhatre family between 1958 and 1960. The court noted that extensive documents were presented, including ration cards from 1987, property tax assessments from 1988-89, water bills from 1996, electricity bills from 1987, and electoral rolls from 1983-85, indicating their residences.
The court also emphasized a 2013 Deed of Conveyance, in which members of the Mhatre family sold the broader property to Indu Enterprise for Rs 75 crore. This deed identified 51 tenants, including the current appellants, ensuring their tenancies remained intact under the new ownership, along with rights and entitlements for redevelopment.
Justice Jadhav rejected the BMC’s reference to a “datum line,” asserting that it was inapplicable to established residential chawls.
The court discovered contradictions in the notices, noting that while the structures were described as unauthorized, residents were simultaneously instructed to request regularization without specifying any illegal aspects. The “typed format notices” were deemed legally untenable.
The absence of any prior inspection or hearing was noted, and earlier unsuccessful attempts under Section 354 of the MMC Act in 2016 were acknowledged. The court concluded that the BMC’s initiation of demolition proceedings in 2025, coinciding with imminent redevelopment, indicated malicious intent.
Classifying the BMC’s actions as an abuse of statutory authority, the High Court approved all six Notices of Motion, annulled the trial court’s interim orders, and prohibited the BMC from taking any coercive measures against the residents until the suits’ final outcomes.
