Summary: The Bombay High Court has stopped the BMC from going ahead with its plans to tear down homes in Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl in Mulund, Mumbai, because there wasn't enough reason or proof, and the residents have been living there for a long time.
On January 5, 2026, Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court made a decision about six complaints from people living in Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl in Mulund (East), Mumbai. The residents, including Pushpalata Pandurang Ale, were fighting against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's (BMC) warnings to knock down their homes, saying they were built without permission.
The BMC had sent warnings on March 15, 2025, under a section of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The warnings claimed the buildings were illegal and needed to be fixed or removed. However, the residents argued that their homes had been there since before 1962, backed by documents like ration cards, tax bills, and water bills.
"The warnings tell the residents to fix or remove the illegal buildings... based on permission given on 20.09.1969."
On December 1, 2025, the court had already given temporary protection to the residents by stopping the BMC from taking any forced action. This was extended until a final decision was made.
The residents showed a lot of proof, including property tax records, voting lists, and a registered deed from 2013, proving they had been living there for a long time. The court noted that the chawl had been around since 1958-1959, and the residents or their families were recognized as tenants.
"Evidence from the past 40 years has been presented and proved by each of the residents before me."
The court found the BMC's actions to be unfair and possibly influenced by other interested parties. The judgment pointed out that the BMC did not follow the proper steps, as no checks or surveys were done before sending the warnings.
"The action needs to stand on its own facts... the warning is as unclear as it can be."
The court canceled the BMC's warnings and protected the residents from any forced action until the legal case is resolved. This decision emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures and protecting the rights of residents who have lived in a place for a long time against unfair actions by authorities.
