Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In this factual backdrop, the notices impugned in this case came to be issued by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation against the Appellants, under Section 351 of the MMC Act, on 23 rd April 2018, calling upon them to show cause as to why an action should not be taken against them for carrying out unauthorized construction of the suit structures and for change of the user. The Appellants gave reply to those notices and produced various documents in support of their contention that, their structures are authorized and in existence since prior to the datum line. The Appellants were also given an opportunity of hearing before the Designated Officer/Assistant Engineer, (B & F), G/South Ward, Mumbai of the Respondent-Municipal Corporation, who has, thereafter by his detailed order dated 1st June 2018, rejected the contentions raised by the Appellants and called upon them to demolish the suit structures, holding those structures to be unauthorized and constructed in violation of the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; and Development Control Regulations. It was held that, the Appellants have failed to submit any authentic document to prove that the suit structures are constructed as per the Rules approved by the Competent Authority or AO(St.)-22038-18-Group.doc further to prove that their structures are in existence since prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962, which is fixed by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation for tolerating the commercial structures. It was further held that, the Appellants have changed the user of the suit structures from 'Cotton Textile Mill' to the commercial business.

Admeasuring an area of 169.20 sq.ft., as clearly demarcated and drawn up, as set out in the Annexure-1, annexed to these presents."

26. Therefore, the structure, which can be seen even in the 'Sale Deed', is of one story, inclusive of the Power Service Station and the Toilet Block; whereas, the structure, which is standing at present on the suit AO(St.)-22038-18-Group.doc site is totally a different structure of shop premises, which is not used for Power Service Station or the Toilet Block. It has totally changed its appearance and everything, for putting it to use for sale of Pancakes. Admittedly, the Appellant has failed to show that, he has carried out this change in the suit structure after obtaining requisite permission from the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. It, therefore, follows that, whatever structure, which is in existence and standing at present, is not the one in respect of which the first assessment for property tax was made by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation in the year 1961, i.e. prior to the datum line. Therefore, it is needless to state that, unless the Appellant had produced some document authorizing this change in the structure, the structure is required to be held and called as unauthorized and illegal. Appellant cannot take the benefit of the 'Assessment Extract' for proving the legality of the suit structure, which is standing at the site at present and in respect of which, the impugned notice is issued. Needless to state that, as regards the other documents, like the 'Shop and Establishment Certificate' or the 'Sale Deed', they cannot prove the legality or authorization of the suit structure.

013."

37. Neither the 'Approved Plans' of the years 1975 and 1977 or the 'Tikka Sheets' show the existence of this structure. The user of the structure is also changed from 'Cotton Textile Mill' to commercial purpose. No document is produced on record to prove that the construction of the structure was done after obtaining requisite permission from the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it follows that, this construction is also illegal and unauthorized.

Appeal From Order (Stamp) No.22406 of 2018 M/s. Renaissance Paints Pvt. Ltd.

52. Here in the case, no such permission is, admittedly, obtained. No such information of the intention to erect the building, in the requisite proforma is, admittedly, given and, therefore, there being no compliance of the provisions under Section 337 or even of Section 342 of the MMC Act, which contemplates notice to be given to the Commissioner of intention to make additions to the existing structure or to change the user thereof, being made in the instant case, after giving opportunity of hearing to the Appellants and on considering all the documents produced by them, a reasoned and speaking order is passed by the Designated Officer for pulling down the suit structures. Sub-section (2) of Section 351 of the MMC Act clearly authorizes the Designated Officer to pass such order, if the person, to whom the notice is issued, failed to show sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner as to why such work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. Hence, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the Designated Officer under Section 351 of the MMC Act, so as to restrain the Respondent- Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance thereof. AO(St.)-22038-18-Group.doc