In a strongly worded judgment that has sent shockwaves through municipal circles, the Bombay High Court has ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner to launch a formal inquiry into the prolonged existence of an unauthorised structure on a public street in Santacruz (West), Mumbai. The directive highlights serious concerns over possible “willful blindness or dereliction of duty” by BMC officials, as the structure – a small video game parlour stall – stood for over two decades immediately behind a municipal chowki (local ward office) and abutting a railway line, without any effective action being taken until a 2019 demolition notice.
The order, delivered by Justice Kamal Khata on 10 February 2026 in Contempt Petition No. 330 of 2025 (arising from Appeal from Order No. 874 of 2024), dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner Preeti Manohar Sakpal while imposing exemplary costs of ₹5 lakhs on her. The court also dismissed her contempt petition against the BMC (after accepting that the breach had been purged) but issued a stern warning to the corporation and directed accountability measures against erring officials.
Full Background of the Case
The dispute dates back to 30 July 2019, when the BMC issued a notice under Section 314 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, directing the removal of an alleged unauthorised structure measuring approximately 40 ft × 10 ft (or 10.40 m × 1.6 m as per BMC records) on M.G. Road, near Tilak Road, Santacruz (West). The petitioner, Preeti Manohar Sakpal (daughter of the original occupant, now deceased), claimed the premises housed her family’s video game parlour business, which she said had been in existence since at least 1986.
Sakpal’s father had allegedly acquired rights to an “open space” via an unregistered agreement dated 12 September 1986 for ₹95,000 from one Pandurang Gawade. She produced supporting documents including:
- Electricity meter transfer application (1987)
- Electricity bills spanning decades
- Property tax receipts
- Shop and Establishment registration certificate
She argued these proved long-standing, uninterrupted possession (well beyond the MRTP Act’s datum line of 1 January 1964/1961 for protected structures) and that the BMC notice was invalid, vague, and typically used for hawkers rather than permanent shops. She claimed the structure was not on the road or abutting any nala, but behind two other structures, and that demolition was being disguised as road widening.
On 2 August 2019, just days after the notice, Sakpal filed a civil suit (L.C. Suit No. 1879 of 2019) in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi seeking an injunction against demolition. The trial court dismissed her Notice of Motion on 7 May 2024, refusing interim relief.
Sakpal appealed to the Bombay High Court (Appeal from Order No. 874 of 2024). During pendency, the High Court granted interim status quo on 27 November 2024. However, in a larger anti-encroachment drive on 15 May 2025 near Santacruz West Railway Station (removing ~38 stalls/projections), a portion of her structure was partially demolished. The BMC stopped the action once the court order was highlighted, reconstructed the demolished part on 16 August 2025, and tendered an apology.
Sakpal then filed a contempt petition (No. 330 of 2025), alleging wilful disobedience. She also pressed for priority hearing of contempt over the main appeal.
Why the Court Came Down Heavily on BMC Officials
While the court firmly ruled against the petitioner – holding the structure unauthorised, on a public street/footpath (defined under Section 3(w) & (x) of the BMC Act), removable summarily under Section 314, and that no documents conferred title or regularisation – it reserved its sharpest criticism for the BMC’s systemic failures.
Key observations:
- The structure’s location immediately behind a BMC chowki (ward office) and near the railway line made its decades-long existence inexplicable without municipal complicity or gross negligence.
- Such prolonged inaction “raises serious and troubling questions” of “willful blindness or dereliction of duty” by municipal officers.
- Failure to act against illegal constructions “emboldens wrongdoers and corrodes the confidence of law-abiding citizens in municipal governance and the rule of law.”
- The court treated this as a “test case” to address accountability.
Directions on BMC accountability:
- Municipal Commissioner to initiate an inquiry to identify responsibility for the inaction.
- Take necessary steps against concerned officers.
- Place adverse entries on their service records.
- A copy of the judgment to be sent to the Commissioner forthwith.
The court accepted the BMC’s explanation that the partial demolition was inadvertent (part of a wider drive, no petitioner representative present), stopped promptly, and rectified via reconstruction. Contempt was thus purged, but with a stern warning of strict consequences (departmental inquiry, suspension, etc.) for any future violations.
Outcome and Broader Implications
- Appeal dismissed with ₹5 lakh costs (payable within 4 weeks to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund; recoverable as land revenue if defaulted).
- Trial court order upheld; interim relief vacated.
- Matter listed for compliance on 24 March 2026.
- Request for stay of the judgment rejected.
The judgment underscores a zero-tolerance stance on public land encroachments, criticising both litigants who abuse process to prolong illegal occupation and municipal bodies that allow such structures to fester due to lax enforcement. Legal experts view the inquiry directive as a rare push for internal municipal reform in encroachment matters.
Also Read: Senior Citizens First: Builders Face Removal If Redevelopment Delays Leave Elderly Roofless
