Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Notices Issued Under Section 351 of MMC Act: “Unauthorized Structures Must Prove Their Legitimacy”

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by occupants of alleged unauthorized structures challenging the denial of ad-interim relief by the City Civil Court. The Court upheld the validity of notices issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act), finding that the appellants failed to provide prima facie evidence establishing the legality of their structures. The Court observed, “The reasons mentioned and conclusions drawn in the impugned order are neither perverse nor arbitrary nor capricious.”

Facts:

1. The appellants, occupants of structures located at a site within Arab Lane, Mumbai, claimed that their constructions existed before the 1945 datum line, thereby qualifying for protection.
2. The site had been included in slum rehabilitation plans, and the appellants argued that their structures were assessed for taxation since 1961.
3. Notices were issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 351 of the MMC Act, declaring the structures unauthorized and calling for their removal.
4. The appellants contended that the notices were invalid and sought ad-interim relief to restrain the Municipal Corporation from acting upon them.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellants’ structures were legally authorized and protected under the Slum Act or any other law.
2. Whether the City Civil Court erred in refusing ad-interim relief against the notices issued under Section 351 of the MMC Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The appellants asserted that the structures were assessed by the Municipal Corporation since 1961, which implied their legality.
• They relied on two assessment bills and capital value statements to establish the existence of lawful constructions.
• Referenced multiple judgments, including Vadial Maganlal Trevadia v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, to argue that the burden of proof for illegality rested with the Municipal Corporation.
• Claimed that the structures were eligible for protection under slum rehabilitation laws due to their location on slum land.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Municipal Corporation argued that:
  • The assessment bills cited by the appellants merely reflected tax records and did not confer legality upon the structures.
  • The disputed structures included unauthorized additions, such as first floors, which were absent in the assessment records.
  • The appellants failed to produce valid photo passes or documents establishing protection under the Slum Act.
• The private owner of the land (Respondent No. 2) maintained that the structures were unauthorized, lacked sanction, and were not part of any slum redevelopment scheme.

Analysis of the Law:

• Section 351 of the MMC Act: The provision empowers the Municipal Corporation to take action against unauthorized structures. The appellants were required to produce evidence to substantiate their claim of legality. The Court observed that this burden was not discharged.
• Capital Value Rules (2015): These rules govern tax assessments but do not confirm the existence or authorization of structures.
• Burden of Proof: The Court distinguished Vadial Maganlal Trevadia, emphasizing that the case facts differed significantly. In the current case, no evidence existed to support the appellants’ claims.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Vadial Maganlal Trevadia v. Bombay Municipal Corporation:
   • The Court ruled that the burden of proof in certain cases could shift to the Municipal Corporation. However, it clarified that this principle does not universally apply and depends on specific circumstances.
2. Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi:
   • The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts should not interfere with trial court discretion unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or capricious.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Lack of Prima Facie Evidence: The appellants relied on assessment bills, capital value statements, and survey documents. However, these failed to demonstrate the existence of lawful structures (ground + one) before the datum line.
2. Adequate Opportunity Provided: The Municipal Corporation issued notices and passed speaking orders after considering the appellants’ submissions. The Court noted that no breach of natural justice occurred.
3. Different Context of Cited Judgments: The Court found that the judgments relied upon by the appellants were factually distinct and could not support their claims.
4. Judicial Caution: Relying on Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2020, the Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in intervening against actions targeting unauthorized constructions.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notices issued under Section 351 of the MMC Act. The Court ruled that the appellants failed to produce any evidence warranting the grant of ad-interim relief. The ad-interim protection was extended for two weeks to allow the appellants to pursue further remedies.

Implications:

• For Unauthorized Structures: The judgment reaffirms that mere tax assessments or inclusion in surveys do not automatically confer legality on unauthorized constructions.
• For Municipal Authorities: The Court supported the role of municipal authorities in enforcing actions against illegal constructions, provided that proper procedures are followed.
• Judicial Approach: The judgment highlights the principle of judicial restraint, discouraging courts from interfering in municipal actions absent clear evidence of illegality or procedural lapses.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declaration Against Former Director, Holds Fundamental Rights Under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 Enforceable Against IDBI Bank Despite Its Private Status, Given the Significant Civil Consequences of Being Declared a Wilful Defaulter