Bombay HC Orders BMC to Remove Unauthorized Community Hall in Ghatkopar

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish an illegally built community hall in Ghatkopar within one week. The hall was constructed without permission on a plot of land officially reserved for a playground.

In its judgment dated April 17, the division bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata strongly criticized such unauthorized constructions, stating they disrupt the city’s planned development and put additional pressure on already limited resources.

According to the bench, law-abiding citizens who live in authorized buildings often face shortages and difficulties because of these illegal structures.

The court also held BMC officers accountable for neglecting their duties. It directed the municipal commissioner to take suitable action against the responsible officers and submit a detailed report within six months.

The court ordered that the illegal structure built by the trust must be torn down and the land restored to its original purpose as an open space. No future construction should be permitted on that plot.

This directive was issued in response to a petition challenging the permissions granted by BMC and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to Akhil Bhatwadi Sarvajanik Utsav Mandal. The trust had started building a community hall on 585 square meters of land in Ghatkopar, despite the land being reserved as a playground.

The petitioners claimed the plot also has a Ganesh temple and the rest of the area was used for sports, religious events, political meetings, and other community activities.

In 1994, the trust had constructed a community hall occupying 90 square meters illegally. That hall was later demolished in 2023, but the trust soon began constructing a new one, allegedly with financial assistance from a Member of Parliament, as mentioned on a public hoarding.

Despite several complaints to the BMC, the petitioners stated that no action was taken for a long time. Only in February this year did the BMC finally issue an order directing the trust to vacate the land and remove the illegal structure.

The High Court pointed out that this case reflects a pattern of “deliberate and willful” inaction by the BMC, which enables illegal constructions to continue. Merely issuing notices without taking further action is not enough, the court said. It emphasized that this lack of enforcement actually encourages more such unlawful activities.

The court also criticized the trust for misusing the legal process. It had filed a civil suit to stop the demolition and obtained an injunction, which the court noted is a common tactic used to delay action against illegal buildings. The HC observed that both MHADA and BMC, along with the trust, were responsible for enabling such unauthorized development.

The judges said this was a clear case of misuse of influence, where the trustees used their political connections to construct an illegal building using public funds. Planning bodies like BMC and MHADA are not allowed to permit any illegal structures, the court stressed.

The bench questioned why BMC did not act immediately after receiving complaints about the illegal construction on land marked for a playground. The delay, it said, amounted to dereliction of duty by BMC officers.

It also called on the municipal commissioner to take strict action against all officers involved in the matter, for failing to provide accurate information to the court and for misuse of their positions.

The court reminded BMC of its responsibility to safeguard public property and ensure that all legal provisions are properly enforced. It underlined the need for BMC staff to take complaints from citizens seriously in order to curb the long-standing problem of illegal construction in Mumbai.

Additionally, the court criticized the BMC for failing to update its lawyers about the true facts of the case. This led to the civil court issuing an injunction order based on incorrect information, which the HC said is completely unacceptable.

Advocates are officers of the court and must present truthful facts, the judges added. In this case, the trust’s lawyer was found to have misrepresented facts to obtain a stay order from the civil court.

The High Court has now referred this matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to consider disciplinary action against the advocate for professional misconduct.