Encroachment Removal by Municipal Corporation: Supreme Court Upholds Mumbai Civic Body’s Action

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa (Deceased) through Legal Heir Mr. Mohd. Muqueen Qureshi & Anr.. The case addressed the legality of removing unauthorized food stalls in Bandra, Mumbai, without prior notice. The Court ruled in favor of the Municipal Corporation, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s directive to restore stalls or provide alternative locations to the petitioners.

Background of the Case

The case involved six street vendors who had been running food stalls at Bandra Station Road, Mumbai. These vendors operated under various names, such as Yadgar Restaurant, Lucky Kabab Corner, and A-1 Seek Kabab. They alleged that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) demolished their stalls on May 26, 2016, without any prior notice, rendering them unemployed.

In response, the vendors filed six writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, seeking restoration of their stalls or an alternative location. They contended that they possessed valid health licenses issued by the Municipal Corporation, permitting them to operate in those locations.

Arguments Presented in the High Court

Petitioners’ Claims

• The vendors argued that the demolition was illegal as no notice was given before the removal of their stalls.
• They claimed that their food stalls were not unauthorized structures and that the action violated their fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
• They sought a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to either restore their stalls or provide them with alternative locations.
• Additionally, they demanded monetary compensation for loss of livelihood.

Municipal Corporation’s Defense

• The Municipal Corporation contended that the food stalls were unauthorized encroachments on public land.
• It invoked Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which permits the removal of illegal structures without prior notice if they obstruct public spaces.
• The stalls were built over a public sewer, obstructing maintenance and causing traffic congestion on Bandra Station Road.
• The health licenses granted to vendors only permitted food vending and did not provide property rights or legal occupancy.

High Court’s Ruling

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the vendors, holding that the Municipal Corporation’s action was arbitrary. The Court directed the Corporation to:

• Allot alternative stalls of the same size in the same locality or nearby.
• Ensure that vendors could continue their businesses in suitable locations.
• Pay compensation for the loss suffered due to demolition.

MCGM, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the Municipal Corporation was justified in removing the stalls under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The key findings were:

• The vendors’ stalls were indeed unauthorized and erected on public land.
• Health licenses do not confer property rights. The vendors were operating under a license to sell food, but this did not permit them to claim ownership of public land.
• The stalls were obstructing public sewer maintenance and causing congestion.
• The Municipal Corporation had followed the law by invoking Section 314, which allows removal without notice if the structures are illegal.

Key Extracts from the Judgment

The Court observed:

“A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the Municipal Corporation to provide alternative land for illegal encroachers. Neither the Constitution nor any statute provides encroachers the right to demand alternative accommodation after eviction.”

Further, the Court ruled:

“The removal of unauthorized stalls was justified under Section 314 of the Act. The vendors had no legal claim over the land, and the Corporation had a duty to ensure public spaces remain unobstructed.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment. The final ruling:

• The vendors had no right to claim alternative sites for their businesses.
• The Municipal Corporation’s removal of the stalls was lawful and did not require prior notice.
• The claim for monetary compensation was dismissed.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Encroachments on Public Land: Unauthorized vendors cannot claim property rights over encroached land.
• Municipal Authority to Remove Encroachments: Under Section 314, civic bodies have the power to remove illegal structures without prior notice.
• No Automatic Right to Alternative Land: Evicted individuals cannot demand alternative sites unless specified under a rehabilitation scheme.
• Health Licenses Do Not Grant Land Rights: Possession of a health license does not validate unauthorized construction.

Conclusion

This ruling reaffirms the authority of municipal bodies to take action against illegal encroachments in public spaces. The judgment ensures that public land is not misused and that civic authorities have the power to maintain infrastructure and prevent obstructions. While it recognizes the hardships faced by vendors, it emphasizes that unauthorized occupation cannot be legitimized through judicial intervention.

Petitioner Name: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors..
Respondent Name: Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa (Deceased) through Legal Heir Mr. Mohd. Muqueen Qureshi & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Bandra, Mumbai.
Judgment Date: 18-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Municipal Corporatio vs Rafiqunnisa M. Khali Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category