A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri passed the order on February 9, 2026, while hearing a writ petition filed by Green Twig Estate Management Pvt Ltd, the owner of Kirti Chambers in Fort (A Ward).

The case stems from the landlord’s long-standing battle to remove an unauthorised mezzanine floor constructed by a tenant. Earlier proceedings revealed that despite court orders and BMC’s own decision dated August 10, 2024, to initiate demolition, the civic body dragged its feet.

On December 23 and 24, 2025, the High Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner (A Ward), Jaydeep More, to ensure compliance. When the matter came up again on January 30, 2026, for recording compliance, the court noticed the delay and asked BMC to initiate action against More.

During the hearing on February 9, BMC advocate Madhavi Nalluri produced the original file. It showed that the court’s December 24 order was sent to Mrs. Chanda Jadhav, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Zone-I), who signed it only on January 8, 2026 — after a 9-day delay. The file then moved to Dr. Ashwini Joshi, Additional Municipal Commissioner (City), who took another 19 days to sign it on January 27, 2026.

Only Municipal Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani acted swiftly, directing a show-cause notice on January 28, which was issued on January 30.

The bench appreciated the prompt action by Commissioner Gagrani and the BMC counsel but pulled up the two senior officers for the avoidable delay. The judges noted that this was not an isolated incident — the corporation had shown a “casual” approach toward High Court orders in the past.

“We have recorded in our order dated 23rd December, 2025 that Municipal Corporations are taking the orders of the High Court casually,” the bench observed.

Considering initiating contempt proceedings, the court ultimately opted for a symbolic penalty to send a strong message.

“In order to ensure that the message goes out loud and clear to the Corporation that the orders of every Court should be acted upon with promptitude, we are imposing costs of Rs.11/- (Rs. Eleven only), to be paid by Mrs. Chanda Jadhav… and by Dr. Ashwini Joshi… from their respective salary accounts,” the order stated.

The amounts are to be deposited with the Kirtikar Law Library in the High Court premises within two days.

The petition has been disposed of but listed again on March 6, 2026, for recording full compliance.

The order has sparked discussion on social media and among legal circles, with many praising the court for using a token fine as a powerful deterrent against administrative lethargy in enforcing building regulations.

Also Read: BMC Commissioner Directed to Hold Inquiry into How Illegal Structure Existed for Decades Next to a BMC Chowki

The post Only ₹11 Fine Each on Two Top BMC Officials for Delaying Court Orders to Demolish Illegal Structures appeared first on Square Feat India.

Introduction: A Clear Message from the Court

In a significant judgment delivered on 11 December 2025, the Bombay High Court sent a strong message to occupants involved in redevelopment disputes: once you accept rehabilitation benefits, you cannot continue litigating to delay demolition and redevelopment.

The Court went a step further — it dismissed multiple suits outright, labelled such conduct as “abuse of process”, and imposed heavy monetary costs on litigants who attempted to block redevelopment despite having signed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA).

The Case in Brief

The judgment was delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav in a batch of appeals, including:

• AO No. 550 of 2025
• Along with connected appeals

Parties Involved

Appellants (Occupants):

• M/s Afsana Enterprises
• Mohd. Hanif Garib Khan
• Shafitullah Chaudhary
• Hasmat Ali Mohd. Ali Khan
• Nagendra Singh

Respondents:

• Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM)
• Flat purchasers
• M/s Royal Developers (appointed developer)
• Court Receiver, Bombay High Court

The dispute related to illegal structures standing on land bearing CTS Nos. 444, 444/1, 444/2 and 445 at Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West).

What Triggered the Dispute

• The land had a long history of litigation, government attachment under SAFEMA, and court supervision.
• It has been under Court Receiver since 2010, making it custodia legis (under court control).
• Over the years, the High Court repeatedly held that:
  • Structures on the land were unauthorised
  • No in-situ regularisation was possible
  • At best, eligible occupants could be rehabilitated

In February 2024, redevelopment moved forward after consent terms were recorded and M/s Royal Developers was brought in.

The Crucial Fact: Rehab Agreements Were Already Signed

Two appellants stood out:

• M/s Afsana Enterprises
• Mohd. Hanif Garib Khan

What they had already done:

• Signed Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (PAAA)
• Accepted the rehabilitation framework
• Acknowledged demolition of existing structures

What they did next:

• Filed fresh suits in the City Civil Court
• Challenged Section 351 demolition notices issued by MCGM
• Sought interim protection to stall demolition

How the Court Viewed This Conduct

The High Court was unsparing in its assessment.

Key Observations:

• Filing suits after accepting rehabilitation was termed “sheer abuse of the process of law”
• The litigation was described as:
  • Extortionist
  • Intended to delay redevelopment
  • Meant to gain leverage despite settled rights

The Court made it clear that:

A litigant cannot approbate and reprobate — accept benefits on one hand and challenge the very process on the other.

Suppression of Facts Made Things Worse

The Court also noted that the appellants:

• Failed to disclose:
  • Earlier High Court orders
  • The role of the Court Receiver
  • The fact that the land was under court custody
• Did not implead the Court Receiver as a party

This lack of candour further weakened their case and justified summary dismissal.

Heavy Costs Imposed: A Rare but Strong Step

To underline its disapproval, the Court imposed exemplary costs:

• Costs payable to:
  • Bombay High Court Library (Original Side)
  • Kirtikar Law Library (Appellate Side)
• Recoverable as arrears of land revenue if unpaid

Why This Matters to the Common Man

1⃣ Courts Are Done With Delay Tactics

The judgment reflects a growing judicial trend:

• Redevelopment cannot be held hostage by a few litigants
• Courts will not tolerate strategic litigation after settlements

2⃣ Rehab Is a Legal Commitment, Not a Bargaining Chip

Once an occupant signs a rehabilitation agreement:

• Rights are crystallised
• Courts expect cooperation, not obstruction

3⃣ Frivolous Litigation Can Be Costly

This case shows that:

• Courts will not just dismiss cases
• They will financially penalise misuse of the system

The Larger Signal for Mumbai’s Redevelopment Landscape

Mumbai’s redevelopment projects often stall because:

• A handful of occupants continue litigating endlessly

This judgment changes the tone:

Accepting rehab closes the door to obstructionist litigation.

It strengthens the hands of:

• Developers
• Housing societies
• Planning authorities
• Flat purchasers waiting for delivery

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s ruling makes one thing clear:
You cannot accept a new home and still try to block the bulldozer.

For occupants, the message is cautionary.
For redevelopment projects, it is reassuring.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes SRA Land Acquisition in Mumbai, Upholds Landowner’s Preferential Right for Redevelopment

The post Signing a Rehab Agreement and Still Going to Court? Bombay HC Says It Can Cost You Dearly appeared first on Square Feat India.

The court observed that these upper floors were illegally occupied without any Occupation Certificate (OC) and completely lacked a Fire NOC, making the entire high-rise unsafe for habitation.

“No Fire NOC, No OC – It’s a Danger to Life”

The division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor held that the 34-storey building located in Tardeo has been occupied illegally since 2011, with floors 17 to 34 never receiving statutory approvals. Shockingly, the building has no fire clearance from the Mumbai Fire Department till date.

“The occupants are a selfish lot, acting in gross violation of building norms and endangering their own lives and those of others,” the court remarked, calling it a case of “brazen illegality.”

Elite Residents, Yet Massive Violations

The court noted that residents of the building are from the “elite class of society” who purchased homes in a prime location, but still chose to occupy flats in a building with serious legal and safety shortcomings. Some alterations, like the merging of 26th and 27th floors into a duplex, were found to be in direct violation of sanctioned plans.

BMC Issued Multiple Notices Since 2011

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had issued several notices under the MMC Act and MRTP Act, asking occupants to vacate or demolish unauthorized construction. These include:

• 2011 & 2012: Alteration and Fire NOC notices
• 2018: 50 individual notices under Section 53(1) MRTP Act
• 2020: Vacate notices under Section 353-A
  Yet, no compliance followed.

No More Protection, Time’s Up

The court vacated its earlier interim stay order (dated March 2025), which had temporarily restrained BMC from taking action. It ordered that all occupants from 17th to 34th floor must vacate within two weeks of the order being made available. BMC is directed to initiate legal action in case of non-compliance.

Lower Floors Still Under Scrutiny

Though floors 1 to 16 had a part OC, even those are now under review due to missing fire safety clearance. The court has scheduled the next hearing on July 29, 2025, to decide whether those floors can be legally occupied.

“This Building Cannot Be Occupied Without Safety Clearances”

The Court made it clear that:

• No humanitarian plea or regularization argument can override basic safety and legal compliance.
• Municipal inaction for over 15 years raises serious questions.
• Occupants continuing to live in such a structure do so at their own risk and legal consequence.

This landmark order may set a strong precedent for illegal high-rise constructions in Mumbai, especially where affluent societies try to shield themselves under the guise of post-facto regularization.

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Rules in Favor of Adani, Rejects UAE Firm’s Plea

The post Willingdon View Building: Bombay High Court Orders Evacuation of Floors 17 to 34 Over Fire and OC Violations appeared first on Square Feat India.