Summary: The Bombay High Court has decided against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) in a case about the supposed illegal building of rooms in Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl, Mulund (East), Mumbai. The court found that the BMC's actions were not justified and has protected the residents from being forced out of their homes.
In a series of legal fights, six residents of Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl opposed the BMC's warnings claiming their homes were illegal buildings. The BMC had sent these warnings under a rule from the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, on March 15, 2025. The residents, including Anita Ashok Mapuskar, argued against these warnings, saying their homes have been there since before 1962.
The case was looked at by Justice Milind N. Jadhav on December 15, 2025, and the decision was given on January 5, 2026. The court noticed that the BMC's warnings were unclear and did not explain what was supposedly illegal about the constructions.
"The notice is as unclear as it can be and completely insufficient."
The residents showed strong proof, like ration cards, property tax bills, and electricity bills from the 1980s, to show they've lived there a long time. They also pointed out that their rental agreement was updated to include the new landlord when the property was sold in 2013.
The BMC claimed that the residents' buildings didn't match an approved plan from 1969. However, the court found this argument weak, noting that the BMC had been collecting property taxes from these residents for many years.
The court canceled the BMC's warnings and orders, saying that the actions seemed to be influenced by parties with a vested interest, possibly related to redevelopment plans.
"The action of the Corporation is clearly not justified."
The court ordered that no forceful action be taken against the residents until the entire legal process is completed.
This decision is a big relief for the residents of Rakhmabai Mhatre Chawl, making sure their homes are safe from being torn down or evicted by the BMC. The case shows the importance of fair legal processes and the need for clear, specific legal warnings when dealing with supposed illegal buildings.
