The Bombay High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on a litigant who tried to protect  an unauthorized structure built  on a public street from demolition.  The court said that people who attempt to continue an illegal  occupation of public property cannot ask the court for equitable relief. It also observed  that keeping such structures  in place for long periods  encourages more encroachments and weakens the authority of  municipal bodies.

Background of the Case:

Justice Kamal Khata heard an appeal against a City Civil Court order that had refused  the appellant's request( Notice of Motion ) to stop  the Municipal Corporation from demolishing  a structure on M.G. Road, Mumbai.

 Structure Built On Footpath:
The appellant claimed  her father got  the premises in 1986 through an agreement and that the structure had existed  for many decades. The Municipal Corporation argued that the structure was  illegal because it was  built  on a municipal footpath forming part of a  public street,  and it had to be removed  to clear obstructions  and improve  traffic movement.

The Court held  that the appellant failed to show  any legal entitlement or permission for the structure. The agreement dated  12th September 1986 was not registered, related to  public land, and did not give any lawful ownership or   interest in the structure. 

The Court also clarified that  paying  electricity bills,  paying municipal taxes, or having  a shop and establishment certificate does not confer ownership  or make an unauthorized construction legal.

The Court noted  that the appellant had managed to hold on to the clearly  illegal structure for more than six years following the 2019 notice. This long delay, caused by court cases, sends the wrong message and encourages people to benefit from illegal constructions while the case is pending.

No Equitable Relief For Illegal Occupation:
The court  ruled that anyone asking for protection  for an unauthorized structure on public land cannot seek  equitable relief, and courts should not help people who try to make illegal occupation appear lawful. 

The Court expressed concern that  the structure had remained for more than two decades, especially because it was located right behind  a municipal chowki and next to a railway line, suggesting possible  neglect of duty.

 It directed the Municipal Commissioner to start an inquiry to fix responsibility  for the long delay and to place this  order in the service records of the concerned  officers. 

“The location of the unauthorised structure—immediately behind a Municipal chowki and abutting a railway line—raises serious and troubling questions. Such a structure could not have existed for years without willful blindness or dereliction of duty on the part of municipal officers.”  the Court observed.

Appeal Dismissed, Money To Welfare Fund:
So, the appeal was  dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as  costs  to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court also warned the Municipal Corporation and its officers not to violate its directions in the future. It said that any breach would lead to strict action, including departmental inquiries and suspension.

Case Title:  Preeti Manohar Sakpal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. [CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 330 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 874 OF 2024]