Bombay High Court on DP Roads & Public Interest: Trial Court Cannot Reinterpret High Court Directions.

The Bombay High Court set aside an injunction granted by the City Civil Court restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from removing obstructions on a Development Plan (DP) road. The Court held that the Trial Court acted without jurisdiction in re-interpreting binding directions issued earlier by the High Court and erred in insisting upon completion of a uniform 13.40-metre-wide road when no such condition was imposed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that private societies cannot obstruct a public road on untenable grounds, particularly when the road vests in the municipal authority and public interest overwhelmingly demands its opening.

• The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenged an order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the City Civil Court, Borivali, partly allowing Notice of Motion No. 315 of 2025 in L.C. Suit No. 2032 of 2023 and restraining demolition of a security cabin, entrance gate and MS tin sheet fencing erected by the respondent societies on a DP road.

• Earlier, by order dated 03.10.2023 in Appeal From Order No. 811 of 2023, the Bombay High Court had permitted temporary retention of the structures only until completion of development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot, with a clear direction that the structures must be removed upon intimation by the Corporation.

• After the adjoining road was constructed and handed over by the developer (Panom Developers LLP), the Corporation issued notices calling upon the societies to remove the obstructions.

• Instead of seeking clarification from the High Court, the societies amended the plaint and filed a fresh Notice of Motion before the Trial Court, which restrained the Corporation on the ground that the DP road was not developed uniformly to a width of 13.40 metres.

• Several neighbouring housing societies and the developer intervened, contending that continued obstruction of the road severely prejudiced public access and traffic flow between Sahar Road and Sai Mandir Road.

• Once the High Court has issued specific directions, a Trial Court has no jurisdiction to interpret, modify or expand those directions; any grievance must be addressed before the same High Court.

• The order dated 03.10.2023 never mandated completion of a uniformly 13.40-metre-wide road; it merely required development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot.

• The Trial Court’s reliance on a subsequent interim order dated 02.05.2024 to introduce the requirement of a 13.40-metre width was legally impermissible.

• The DP road in question vested in the Municipal Corporation since 1984, and the respondent societies had no right, title or interest in the land.

• The continued obstruction by the societies amounted to abuse of the process of law and was contrary to public interest, especially when the road had been substantially developed and was capable of public use.

• Public roads under a Development Plan cannot be held hostage by private parties on speculative or self-serving conditions.

• The injunction granted by the Trial Court was held to be legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

• Section 314, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Power to remove obstructions on public streets.

• Sections 306 & 312, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Public streets and unauthorized structures.

• Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Development Plan and public roads.

• Article 227, Constitution of India – Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.