Bombay High Court on Obstruction of Development Plan Road: Trial Court Cannot Reinterpret High Court Directions.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court set aside an order of the City Civil Court which had restrained the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from removing obstructing structures on a Development Plan (DP) road until construction of a uniform 13.40-metre-wide road was completed. The Court held that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reinterpreting and effectively modifying binding directions earlier issued by the High Court. Once development and construction of the DP road on the adjoining plot was completed and handed over to the Corporation, the respondent housing societies were bound to remove the obstructions. Private parties cannot obstruct a public road by imposing conditions contrary to public interest.

Background:

1. The dispute concerns a DP road connecting Sahar Road and Sai Mandir Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai.
2. The road land had been acquired by the Municipal Corporation in 1983 and formally conveyed in its favour in 1984.
3. The respondent housing societies erected structures including a security cabin, entrance gate and MS tin fencing in the middle of the DP road.
4. In Appeal From Order No. 811 of 2023, the Bombay High Court by order dated 03 October 2023 permitted the societies to retain the structures only until the Corporation completed development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot.
5. Upon completion of the adjoining road works by the developer (Panom Developers LLP) and intimation by the Corporation, the societies failed to remove the structures.
6. The Trial Court, by order dated 31 July 2025, restrained the Corporation from taking action, holding that the DP road had not been constructed to a uniform width of 13.40 metres.
7. This led to the present Appeal From Order filed by the Corporation, along with intervention applications by the developer and neighbouring housing societies.

Issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court could reinterpret or clarify binding directions issued earlier by the High Court.
2. Whether completion of a uniform 13.40-metre-wide DP road was a precondition for removal of obstructions.
3. Whether private housing societies could obstruct a public DP road in derogation of public interest.

Court’s Observations:

1. The High Court had never directed construction of a uniform 13.40-metre-wide road as a precondition in its order dated 03.10.2023.
2. The Trial Court acted impermissibly in interpreting and modifying the High Court’s directions.
3. Filing of a fresh Notice of Motion before the Trial Court amounted to abuse of the process of law, especially when the High Court had already issued clear directions.
4. Ownership of the DP road vested in the Corporation since 1984; the societies had no right, title or interest in the road.
5. The obstructions were illegal and directly prejudicial to the public at large, including thousands of residents dependent on the road.
6. Development Plans are implemented progressively; private parties cannot stall public infrastructure by insisting on ideal or uniform specifications.

Held:

1. The Appeal From Order was allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 31 July 2025 passed by the City Civil Court was set aside.
3. The Municipal Corporation was entitled to act upon its notices and remove the obstructing structures without any further restraint.
4. Intervention applications by the developer and neighbouring societies were entertained in view of overriding public interest.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Sections 312, 314, 394, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
2. Development Control Regulations
3. Principles governing public roads, development plans and abuse of process
4. Jurisdictional limits of subordinate courts vis-à-vis High Court orders

Case

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society & Ors.

Court

High Court of Judicature at Bombay

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Coram

Justice Milind N. Jadhav