Bombay High Court on Illegal Structures & Suppression of Facts: Injunctions Denied.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court dismissed a series of appeals filed by eight individuals seeking injunctions against demolition of their structures by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The Court held that all structures were illegal encroachments on land belonging to a Co-operative Housing Society, located within a prohibited railway buffer zone. The Court found that the appellants had suppressed earlier litigation involving the same cluster of illegal structures, which amounted to material concealment and disentitled them to equitable relief. Census certificates and repair permissions were held insufficient to establish legality or ownership. Consequently, all appeals and interim applications were dismissed.

Background:

• Eight appellants filed separate suits in 2024 seeking permanent injunctions restraining MCGM from demolishing their structures, claiming long-standing possession.

• Their suits relied on identical documents: 1976/1980 census records, 2000 census receipts, 1982 repair permissions, electricity bills, and photographs.

• The structures stand on 107 sq. m. land belonging to Nemi Krishna Co-operative Housing Society, situated near Kandivali Railway Station, within 150 metres of Platform No. 1.

• MCGM issued notices under Section 349 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act for removal of unauthorized structures.

• Appellants alleged high-handed demolition attempts and argued that the structures were protected and long-standing.

• However, the appellants did not disclose earlier litigation involving 27 illegal structures previously adjudicated in the same location—an omission later found to be deliberate.

Court’s Observations:

• The appellants filed suits as if they were owners, while knowing that the land belonged to the Housing Society. This itself was misleading.

• Suppression of earlier litigation amounted to suppresso veri, suggestio falsi, which is fatal to equitable relief.

• The structures were illegal from inception, located on prohibited railway buffer land, and never granted any occupancy rights by the land-owning Society.

• Census records and repair permissions do not legalize encroachments nor confer title or possessory rights sufficient for injunction.

• The Court held that the Trial Court was correct in refusing interim injunctions because the appellants failed to show:

– a prima facie case

– balance of convenience

– irreparable loss

• Granting an injunction would have the effect of protecting illegal encroachments on a third party’s land, which is impermissible.

• MCGM had followed due process by issuing statutory notices; therefore, the demolition action could not be restrained.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 349, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Power of MCGM to remove unauthorized and dangerous structures.

• Principles of Equity – Suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant to relief in equity (injunction is an equitable remedy).

• Doctrine on Illegal Structures – Courts cannot protect illegal construction or encroachments through injunctions.

• Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Requirements for interim injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm).

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:51318

Case: Ganpat Shankar Chougule v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. (with connected matters)

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Justice Milind N. Jadhav

Date of Decision: 26 November 2025

Appeal From Order No.: 226 of 2025 (with 227/2025, 247/2025, 248/2025 & connected AOs and Interim Applications)