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

5.5. He would submit that for the past several years, Plaintiffs have incurred costs for laying and maintaining the sewers, drains, street lights for the said road. He would submit that though according to Plaintiffs the said road area was deleted from the Development Plan of 1991, however since Corporation has acquired it, it claims to be owner of the road area ad-measuring 1859 square meters and it is claimed as a public road / public street. He would fairly inform the Court that in the year 2005, Corporation issued notices under Section 297 of the MMC Act to Plaintiff No.1 – Society, copies of which are appended to the page Nos.634 to 637 of the Appeal From Order due to which the main entrance gate and security cabin was shifted behind by

1.52 meters / 5 feet, to facilitate the widening of Sahar Road by 10 feet. He would submit that issuance of these notices and the action taken thereafter clearly confirm the fact that Suit structures were in existence at the then time and said road was not a public road.

5.6. He would submit that it is only in 2023 that notice dated 14.08.2023 was received by Plaintiffs for taking over possession of the road area and the same was therefore challenged by Plaintiffs by filing Suit No.2032 of 2023. He would fairly submit that Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion was rejected by order dated 14.09.2023 which promoted the Plaintiffs to file Appeal from Order No.811 of 2023 to challenge the said order. He would submit that in the Appeal from Order which was heard by this Court, order dated 03.10.2023 was passed by virtue of Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 9 which the main entrance gate, security cabin and MS tin sheets fencing were protected by this Court until such time that the Corporation completed development and construction of the DP road on the adjoining plot of land and Court directed that once such development and construction was completed Corporation shall intimate Plaintiffs, who shall remove all 3 structures within two weeks of such intimation.

5.7. He would argue that the aforesaid order is the order under which the Plaintiffs are seeking protection. He would submit that the time has not arrived for Plaintiffs to remove the 3 structures as directed by this Court in the aforesaid order. He would submit that despite this, Corporation issued second notice dated 02.02.2024, inter alia, contending that Intervenor namely Panom Developers LLP has handed over advance possession of setback land ad-measuring 13.40 meters road line passing through its SRA Scheme and Corporation has undertaken work of construction of road from Sahar Road through Jeevan Vikas Marg to Sai Mandir Road and the people residing in the nearby areas are facing a lot of inconvenience for vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic and therefore the said public road is required to be opened up and called upon Plaintiffs to remove their obstructing structures.

5.8. One of his submission is that in the second notice Corporation has not intimated that construction and development of Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 10 the road which they were required to complete in terms of directions contained in the order dated 03.10.2023 has been completed. Hence he would argue that since the order dated 03.10.2023 is not complied and construction and development of the 13.40 meter DP road is not completed, Trial Court has passed the impugned order correctly directing Corporation to first comply with the specific directions of this Court in order dated 03.10.2023 and complete construction and development of 13.40 meter wide DP road on either side of the impugned structures and once that is completed and functional, Corporation can call upon Plaintiffs to remove the impugned structures.

5.9. He would submit that the same position existed in April 2024 when Plaintiffs’ Interim Application No.8225 of 2024 was heard by this Court and by order dated 02.05.2024 (Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.) Court observed that construction of road of 13.40 meters was not complete and hence there would be stay to the notices dated 14.08.2023 and 02.02.2024.

5.10. He would submit that in the above background, Plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 seeking urgent relief in respect of the impugned notices dated 14.08.2023 and 02.02.2024 issued by Corporation and after hearing parties order dated 31.07.2025 is passed restraining Corporation from demolishing the impugned structures Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 11 until completion of development and construction of 13.40 meters wide DP road in compliance with directions contained in order dated 03.10.2023.

5.11. He would submit that even Corporation’s own Affidavit dated 12.06.2024 and its written statement dated 28.01.2025, reflects that Corporation has completed construction of the road on either side of the impugned structures to the extent of having an average width of

10.84 square meters only. He would submit that there is no uniformity in the development and construction of the DP road on either side of the impugned structures which are situated in the middle of the road line. He would submit that unless and until the said road is uniformly developed and constructed having 13.40 meters width for the entire stretch, the impugned structures cannot be removed since an incomplete road is practically unusable and defeats the very purpose and intent of the direction issued by this Court.

5.12. That apart he would submit that action of Corporation is only at the behest of Intervenor Developer and in connivance and collusion with various other Societies in the vicinity who are seeking to force open the DP Road despite the same not having been fully developed. He would submit that Corporation appears to be acting with unusual haste and alacrity to demolish the protected structures only for the benefit of Developer who has developed the adjacent SRA Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 12 Scheme plot and by opening the said DP Road it would largely benefit the said SRA Scheme. He would submit that Developer namely Panom Developers LLP has directly approached this Court in the present Appeal From Order and has no locus to intervene in the present dispute between the Plaintiffs and Corporation.

5.13. That apart, he would submit that the other Intervenors who are Co-operative Housing Societies in the vicinity of Plaintiffs also have no locus in the prevailing dispute between the Plaintiffs and Corporation since lis pertains to privity with the Corporation and unless and until Corporation constructs and develops 13.40 meters wide DP Road as per Development Plan, the impugned structures deserve to be protected.

6. Mr. Kanade, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Intervenor namely Panom Developers LLP would submit that Applicant is implementing a SRA Scheme on the plot adjacent to the Plaintiffs for which permissions, sanctions and approvals for construction of buildings are granted by the Planning Authority on the basis that there is an existing road line / land access starting from Sai Mandir road passing through Applicant’s property and thereafter from Plaintiffs’ property upto Sahar Road.

6.1. He would submit that Applicant’s proposal of Slum Scheme consists of 9 buildings including a building of ground + 8 upper floors Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 13 reserved for the Corporation for a Municipal Primary School and Municipal dispensary. He would submit that as per the requirement of Corporation, Applicant has covered the nalla passing through its property having length of 300 meters by having constructed culvert boxes thereon and has constructed a proper road with vehicular access which forms part of the DP road.

6.2. He would submit that Applicant has complied with all formalities for construction of public road and already handed over the same to the Corporation. He would submit that reference of the adjoining plot of land in order dated 03.10.2023 passed in Appeal From Order No.811 of 2023 is to the Applicant’s property. He would submit that at the time of passing of said order the portion of road area on Applicant’s property was not ready and completed and hence the said directions were given. He would submit that however upon construction and completion thereof and Applicant having handed over possession thereof to Corporation, the Corporation by its letter / notice of intimation dated 02.02.2024 called upon Plaintiffs to remove the illegal structures in accordance with the direction in the order dated 03.10.2023 which the Plaintiffs have refused.

6.3. He would submit that the average width of public road which is passing through Applicant’s property is 10.84 meters sufficient to have vehicular access and as such an unhindered and connectivity Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 14 can be established from Sai Mandir Road to Sahar Road. He would submit that upon the public road being put to use by public at large, presently 1500 families in the vicinity of Sai Mandir Road will be benefited and further nearby 600 families who have purchased / shall purchase premises in Applicant’s slum scheme will also be benefited. Hence, he would urge the Court to step in and vacate the impugned order and allow Corporation to remove the obstructions i.e. the suit structures so that the public DP road is opened up in public interest.

7. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Intervenors – Shiv Siddhi Vinayak CHS and 8 others in Interim Application (St.) No.36164 of 2025 would submit that Applicants have filed Interim Application for being added as Respondents to the Appeal From Order and/or to be heard at the time of hearing of the Appeal From Order. He would submit that Applicant Nos.[1] to 8 are the Co-operative Housing Societies and Applicant No.9 is a Tenants’ Association, who are situated near Sai Mandir Road off Jeevan Vikas Kendra Road. He would submit that Applicants represent approximately 650 families / resident families in the area.

7.1. He would submit that Applicants are affected parties on account of the illegal suit structures erected by Plaintiffs - Societies on the public road connecting Sai Mandir Road to Sahar Road. He would submit that subject matter of the above Appeal from Order being a Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 15 public road, is required to be opened up and put at use by the Corporation for use of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in public interest. He would submit that Corporation is under a statutory obligation to ensure that public road is not obstructed by any person or persons. He would submit that however in the case at hand Corporation has failed to comply with its statutory obligations. He would submit that Applicants have every reason to believe that Corporation is acting in collusion with Plaintiffs and delaying opening of the public road for use of general public by not removing the illegal structures erected by Plaintiffs right in the middle of the road.

7.2. In view of the above, he would submit that right and entitlement of general public residing in the locality to have smooth and effectual use and access to the said public road, is seriously affected, hampered and prejudiced. Hence he would urge this Court to allow the present Interim Application and also allow the Appeal from Order with consequential directions.

8. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Appellant – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; Mr. Savant, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (Plaintiffs) in Appeal From Order; Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate for Applicants – Intervenors in Interim Application (St.) No.36164 of 2025 and Mr. Kanade, learned Advocate for Applicant in Interim Application No.13090 of 2025 and Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 16 with their able assistance perused the entire record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates for respective parties have received due consideration of the Court.

9. In the present case it is seen that Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 namely Kalpita Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Kalpita Enclave ‘L’ Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Kalpita ‘M’ Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are the original Plaintiffs. Appeal from Order is filed by Corporation being aggrieved with order dated 31.07.2025 passed in Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 in L.C. Suit No.2032 of 2023.

10. Precursor to the above order is that Plaintiff had filed Notice of Motion No.2929 of 2023 in the same Suit proceedings at the time of inception of Suit seeking permanent and temporary injunction against Corporation. That Motion was dismissed by order dated 14.09.2023. Original Plaintiffs filed Appeal From Order No.811 of 2023 in this Court. By order dated 03.10.2023 (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) Appeal From Order was disposed of with directions. However, there was one more order dated 02.05.2024 (Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.) passed in Interim Application 8225 of 2024 thereafter.

11. Directions contained in order dated 03.10.2023 having being complied with enabled the Corporation to call upon Plaintiffs to abide by its obligation as directed by this Court in the order dated Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 17 03.10.2023. However, Plaintiffs amended the Suit Plaint and filed fresh Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 for the twin reliefs of seeking appointment of Commissioner and for temporary injunction in terms of directions contained in order dated 03.10.2023.

12. At the outset, prima facie, once the this Court was seized of the matter and passed directions in the order dated 03.10.2023 filing of Notice of Motion No. 315 of 2025 once again seeking relief of temporary injunction from the Trial Court was on the face of record not maintainable. Plaintiffs camouflaged the said Notice of Motion by including a prayer for appointment of Commissioner after carrying out amendment to the Suit plaint to oversee whether directions given by this Court were complied with or otherwise and called upon the Trial Court to interpret the said directions contained in the order passed by this Court.

13. The Trial Court without understanding the ethos of the fresh Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 filed by Plaintiffs passed the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 by interpreting the twin orders dated 03.10.2023 and 02.05.2024 passed by this Court and partly allowed the Notice of Motion against which present Appeal From Order is filed by Corporation. In my opinion, filing of Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 by Plaintiffs in the facts and circumstances of the present case before Trial Court is nothing but a sheer abuse of the due Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 18 process of law and an act of defiance of the directions passed by this Court.

14. If Plaintiffs were aggrieved by they could have sought clarification for interpretation of the twin orders passed by this Court, but it did not choose to do so. In the impugned order, the twin orders passed by this Court, have been interpreted and clarified by the Trial Court, which is impressible in law and on this ground alone the Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 is not maintainable.

15. Corporation has challenged the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 in the present Appeal from Order in public interest. Intervenor in Intervention Application (St.) No.36164 of 2025 namely Shiv Siddhi Vinayak CHS. Ltd. And 8 other Co-operative Housing Societies and Tenants’ Association seek intervention to challenge the impugned order in public interest at large. Intervention Application No.13090 of 2025 is filed by Panom Developers LLP who is Developer of the adjacent SRA plot having completed its development and having handed over the road area to the Corporation. Plea of Panom Developers LLP is once again in public interest and akin to intervention by the neighboring Co-operative Housing Societies in the vicinity of Plaintiffs.

16. Common ground is pleaded by the Corporation, Panom Developers LLP and Shiv Siddhi Vinayak CHS. Ltd. and 8 other Co- Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 19 operative Housing Societies / Tenants’ Association. Challenge is to the impugned order which resultantly leads to failure of Corporation to open up a fully developed DP road which is a public road belonging to the Corporation and which has been acquired by the Corporation joining Sahar Road on the west to said Sai Mandir Road on the east in Andheri (East) area of Mumbai

17. Resistance to the above is by original Plaintiffs - Societies on the ground of interpretation of the twin orders dated 03.10.2023 and 02.05.2024. Before I advert to the twin orders, I feel it necessary to lay certain foundation to understand the lis leading to passing of the twin orders of which interpretation is the issue before the Court. Though learned Advocates appearing for respective parties have addressed the Court and made submissions on the basis of the twin orders and its interpretation in the public interest, I still feel it necessary to refer to certain facts in order to show the complete dishonesty with which Plaintiffs have conducted themselves and approached the Trial Court and in the present proceedings as well.

18. Plaintiffs – Societies filed L.C. Suit No.2032 of 2023 to challenge Notice dated 01.08.2023 issued by Corporation under Section 314 read with Section 394 of MMC Act on the premise that the entrance gate and security cabin on the north side erected in the middle of the DP road and MS tin sheet fencing on the south side of Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 20 the road referred to as “suit premises” have been constructed on private land owned by Plaintiffs as per approved plan. Case of Plaintiffs is that the purported Municipal Road is a private internal layout road belonging to Plaintiffs in the Suit proceedings this case of Plaintiff is noted by the Trial Court in the order 14.09.2023 whereby the first Notice of Motion for interim relief was rejected by the Trial Court.

19. Plaintiffs - Societies were developed by M/s. Kiran Builders Private Limited prior to the year 1983. Plaintiff No.1 is a group of 10 buildings nomenclatured as “A” to “K” whereas Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are building “L” and “M” in the layout. Admittedly Plaintiffs development on their layout has exploited and consumed the full FSI potential of their plots including that of the DP road which is acquired by the Corporation and stands in the name of Corporation in the property card.

20. Plaintiffs filed Suit previously for seeking conveyance from the Developer which was comprehensively dismissed. First Appeal against the said judgment and order was also dismissed. After development of Plaintiffs’ Societies’ buildings. Since the DP road was not fully developed from east to west Plaintiffs put up the suit structures namely entrance gate and security cabin on the north side and blocked the south side by MS tin fencing structure and continued Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 21 using that part of DP road as its internal road. Plaintiffs continued to do so until its entire development was completed and its adjacent plot was developed and the road area was handed over to the Corporation. The DP road runs from east to west joining Sahar Road and Sai Mandir Road but because of the blockade by Plaintiffs it is not open to public at large despite it is now ready for pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The dishonesty of Plaintiffs’ stems from the fact that they claim that the road is their personal property but admittedly it is not so.

21. After having failed on all counts Plaintiffs have abused the due process of law by filing multiple proceedings and are now contending that even if the said road is a DP road, Plaintiffs will remove the obstruction / blockade which they have put only if the entire stretch of DP road from east to west is fully developed as per DP plan having uniform width of 13.40 meters throughout the length of the said road and only in that case will remove the obstructions. The Plaintiffs cannot put the Planning Authority to such terms and conditions in the above facts.

22. Section 314 of MMC Act confers powers on the Commissioner to remove such structures / fixtures erected and set up contrary to provisions of Sub section 1 of Section 312. Once, it is an admitted position that if any structure or fixture set up on any public street or open channel, drain, well or tank the provisions of Section Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 22 314 (1) of the MMC Act shall apply.

23. What is shocking in the present case is the fact that documents submitted by the Corporation before the Trial Court at the time when order dated 14.09.2023 was passed and as noted in paragraph No.12 thereof clearly and unequivocally showed that Corporation had acquired possession of the said road in question used by Plaintiffs on 12.05.1983 and by virtue of Conveyance dated 15.02.1984 the Developer had surrendered the said road to the Corporation and the road had vested in the Corporation since then. The Property Card in respect of the said road reflects the name of Corporation as the owner of the said road area admittedly.

24. What is shocking is that Plaintiffs filed the suit in the City Civil Court against the original owner of land and Corporation challenging the conveyance dated 15.02.1984 which was dismissed by order dated 07.11.1997. In that suit, Plaintiffs prayed for relief against the owner for executing conveyance in its favour and nothing more. Plaintiffs challenged the judgment dated 07.11.1997 in Appeal which came to be dismissed on 16.09.2016. Hence by virtue of these judgments the status of the public road remained public road and has attained finality. Further to sustain the case of Plaintiffs that the subject structures were constructed by Plaintiffs authorisedly on the public road to claim them as “protected structures” there is no material Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 23 whatsoever produced by Plaintiffs. In the above background the dishonesty of the Plaintiff can be seen when the Plaintiffs once again filed Notice of Motion No.315 of 2020[5] before the Trial Court.

25. In this above background, the twin orders of which interpretation is the principal issue and on which Plaintiffs are relying upon to not give possession of the road area will have to be seen.

26. In the interregnum, Corporation called upon Plaintiffs to remove the obstructing suit structures so that the DP road from Sahar Road and Sai Mandir Road can be opened up. Plaintiffs filed fresh Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025 and pleaded that unless and until the entire stretch of DP road on either side of the road line held by Plaintiffs is fully developed and constructed. Plaintiffs shall not handover the road area held by them and shall not remove their obstructions. The matter travelled to this Court. In the order dated 03.10.2023 in paragraph No.4 a categorical finding is returned by this Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) confirming that Corporation is the owner of the the said piece of land (road area) in pursuance of conveyance executed in its favour and therefore Plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the said land in question.

27. In paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, this Court has made the following observations and given directions which are relevant. They are reproduced below:- Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 24 "6. I have already seen the photographs as well as the video produced for my perusal by Mr. Sawant. It appears that the road on the adjoining plot of land has not yet been completed by the Municipal Corporation, though possession of the land covered by the said road may have been offered by the Developer to the Municipal Corporation.

7. Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, on taking instructions from his clients would submit that the Appellant-Society be permitted to retain all the three structures of security cabin, entrance gate and tin sheets till the Municipal Corporation develops and completes the construction of the road on the adjoining plot of land. Such retention is sought for security measures.

8. Considering the above position, till the Municipal Corporation completes the development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot of land, the Appellant-Society can be permitted to retain all the three structures comprising of security cabin, entrance gate and the tin sheets.

9. Accordingly, the present Appeal is disposed of by modifying the order dated 14 September 2023 passed by the City Civil Court and by directing that the effect of the notice dated 14 August 2023 shall remain stayed only till the Municipal Corporation completes the development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot of land. The moment the development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot of land is complete, the Municipal Corporation shall give an intimation to that effect to the Appellant-Society, who shall remove all the three structures comprising of security cabin, entrance gate and tin sheets within two weeks from date of receipt of such intimation and make available the road for use by members of the public. In the event, the Society fails to remove the security cabin, entrance gate or tin sheets after receipt of communication from the Municipal Corporation as aforestated, it will be open for the Municipal Corporation to act on the notice dated 14 August 2023 and remove the said structures without issuing any further notice."

28. This Court has stated that till the Municipal completes development and construction of DP road on the adjoining plot of land (under SRA scheme) Plaintiffs can be permitted to retain the three (3) obstructing structures (the road area). In paragraph No.9, this Court has categorically directed that the moment development and construction of the road on the adjoining plot of land is completed the Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 25 Corporation shall give intimation to that effect to Plaintiffs who shall remove all three (3) structures and make available the road area held by them for opening up the DP road for the use of the members of the public. This Court has further categorically directed that in the event if Plaintiffs fail to remove the obstructions after receipt of communication from Corporation it will be open for the Corporation to take steps and remove the obstructing structures without issuing any further notice. It is seen that under the above directions Corporation has given intimation to Plaintiffs since development and construction of road on adjacent plot is completed and the same is confirmed by Mr. Kanade by informing the Court that Developer has handed over the road area fully completed on the adjoining plot to the Corporation. Once this is the position as on toady Plaintiffs will therefore have to remove their suit structures as directed to open up the DP road as desired by the Corporation.

29. Plaintiffs have however referred to and relied upon order dated 02.05.2024 (Coram: R.N.Laddha, J.) passed in Interim Application filed by Corporation pursuant to issuance of intimation notice dated 02.02.2024 to Plaintiffs. This Interim Application was filed by Corporation to bring to the notice of the Court that road width of 7 to 8 meters was completed and available but this Court at that time opined that the fact remained that construction of 13.40 meters was not completed and in that view Court granted stay on the notices Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 26 dated 14.08.2024 and 02.02.2024 till the next date. However the dishonest conduct of Plaintiffs can be clearly seen from the averments made in paragraph No.1 in its Affidavit-in-Rejoinder to the Affidavit-in- Reply of the Corporation and more specifically sub-paragraph No. “h” which is reproduced below for reference:- “(h) Under the above circumstances, the reliefs allegedly sought by the Plaintiffs for continuing the retention of the 3 (three) structures until construction of the road of 13.[4] mts on the adjoining land is not at all in aid of the main relief as sought for by the Plaintiffs in the above suit viz. setting aside o the Notice dated 2nd February 2024 read with Notice dated 14th August, 2023.”

30. It is seen that there was no specific direction in the order dated 03.10.2023 regarding construction of 13.40 meters wide DP road but in the aforementioned paragraph the Plaintiffs have falsely stated that this Court (Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.) have specifically directed Corporation to complete construction of 13.40 meters wide DP road on the adjoining plot beyond the road area held by Plaintiffs. Thereafter in paragraph No. “j” of the same Affidavit Plaintiffs are taking advantage by the sentence stated by this Court in its order dated 02.05.2024 wherein for the first time the words “13.4” meters road width has appeared to their advantage.

31. This Affidavit is filed by Rajiv S. Damle authorized signatory of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in the present case have admittedly surrendered the road area to Corporation in the year 1984 but have illegally Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 27 enclosed the said area for their personal use. The said road area admittedly vests and belongs to the Corporation. Plaintiffs have not taken any steps for claiming entitlement to the said road area, rather they cannot do so in law. However they have pleaded in the suit that the road line was deleted in the year 1991 Development Plan and hence the road stood deleted. However even otherwise Plaintiffs cannot have any right in the said road which is not available to them. From the pleadings it is seen that Plaintiffs are compulsive litigants and all their efforts are only to ensure that the DP road area illegally held by them is retained for their use on some ground of the other.

32. Today when matter is argued before me it is informed to me that the average width of the developed DP road is 10.84 meters which is a fully constructed and developed road. The Intervenor 7 cooperative societies and one Tenants’ Association are having thousands of families / members are residing in the vicinity of Sai Mandir road and Sahar road for whose benefit the said DP road needs to be opened up. Plaintiffs cannot claim monopoly and injunction on the ground that unless and until the DP road having uniform width of 13.40 meters is not constructed along the entire stretch. Plaintiffs are entitled to block the road line by the impugned structures. Plaintiffs have vaguely argued and pleaded that acquisition of said road land in 1983 from Developer purportedly for 13.40 meters DP road was defective and faulty and it was fraudulently done in connivance with the earlier Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 28 Developer. Such pleadings are made in the present proceedings at page No.306 in the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder filed by Plaintiffs but such submissions do not prove the case of Plaintiffs neither they assist or aid the Plaintiffs.

33. In the above background, in view of the direction contained in the order dated 07.01.2025 permitting parties to approach the Trial Court Plaintiffs filed fresh Notice of Motion No.315 of 2025. The Trial Court dealt with Plaintiffs’ case once again on the three principles for determination of injunction and in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 returned the following findings:-

34. Trial Court has noticed the fact that in the order dated 03.10.2023 the width of the road as 13.40 meters is not mentioned and it only finds reference in the subsequent order dated 02.05.2024. It is on this basis the finding in paragraph No.15 has been returned and on this ground alone the Trial Court has concluded that since construction of the DP road is not completed the direction of this Court in the order dated 03.10.2023 has not been followed.

35. The aforesaid finding in para 15 has led to passing of the injunction order in Notice Of Motion No. 315 of 2025 directing that till completion of development and construction of road of 13.40 meter as per DP plan and as per the direction of this court dated 03.10.2023 the Corporation shall be restrained. The fallacy in the above order is apparent on the face of record. Admittedly in order dated 03.10.2024 the width of 13.40 meters is not mentioned. 13.40 meters wide DP road was the proposed DP road which was planned as connected road to join the east and west corridor from Sahar road to Sai Mandir road. If the trajectory of the said DP road is seen from the DP plan placed before Court it is a S shaped road connecting the aforesaid two roads which was planned as a connector / feeder road to address the Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 30 proximity of distance for the residents in the entire locality. This connector / feeder road planned as DP road is not merely to benefit Plaintiffs or for that matter the adjacent society but the entire public at large residing in the area. It will be put to use for pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. Merely by showing photographs the case of plaintiffs cannot be believed. The Officers and Engineers of the Corporation on oath have stated that the entire construction of DP road to the extent of having 10.84 meters is fully developed on the adjacent plot which has been handed over by the Developer to Corporation. Admittedly, the said DP road area which is enclosed and used by Plaintiffs does not belong to them and its ownership vests with the Corporation since

1984. Plaintiffs cannot resist handing over of the said DP road area to open up the connector / feeder DP road for the benefit of public at large on the sole ground that it has to have a uniform 13.40 meters width at all places. This amounts to Plaintiffs taking undue advantage of the due process of law because this situation clearly reflects a conflict between a private party (Plaintiffs) having no right whatsoever in the land on the one side and the public at large (all those persons who will use the DP road). The congestion in the city of Mumbai is well known and well documented. Under the MRTP Act development plan has a tenure of 20 years before the next draft development process begins. All developments which are planned at the inception in the DP are proposed and cannot be fructified immediately on the DP Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 31 being notified and it is an ongoing process hampered by various factors like reservations, acquisitions, developments etc. The Plaintiffs derived benefit from one such factor over the years since its adjacent plot was a slum plot having slums. SRA scheme was implemented much late which took up a substantial amount of time and now when the entire development on the adjacent plot is completed and the road line area has been handed over by their developer to the Corporation, the DP road needs to be opened up for the benefit of the public at large for these reasons, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by Plaintiffs that unless and until the DP road has a width of 13.40 meter's uniformly the Plaintiffs cannot be forced to handover possession of the road area to the Corporation and that they should be permitted to subsist with the Suit Structures which are clearly an obstruction.

36. In my opinion Plaintiffs have no right whatsoever to make such a demand which is contrary to the public interest at large. Giving into the demand of the Plaintiffs and agreeing with the reason given in para No.15 by the Trial Court would amount to taking a stand contrary to pubic interest. The connector / feeder DP road joining Sahar road with said Sai Mandir Road is bound to ameliorate and redress the congestion and the legitimate grievances of the residents of the nearby areas who will himself benefit from the use of the said DP road not only in terms of proximity of distance but also proximity of time to reach their destinations and more specifically the civic amenities, Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 32 railway station and the bus stops. Plaintiffs insistence that the road width has to be 13.40 meters only and only then they shall remove the obstruction i.e. Suit Structures is not well founded and cannot be countenanced. This Court is aware that the width of the Road is 10.[4] meters as informed by the Opposite Parties and once it is seen that the said width is good enough for throwing open the road for pedestrian and vehicular traffic then it needs to be opened up. For all the above reasons I find that the conduct of Plaintiffs without it having any right whatsoever in the road area held, that the said road area standing and resting in the name of the Corporation since 1984, that the Plaintiffs having benefited with full FSI potential in its construction and the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by this Court, the insistence of Plaintiffs for having for a 13.40 meter wide DP road cannot be countenanced. Neither the finding returned by the Trial Court in para 15 on the basis of which the operative order has been passed restraining the Corporation from taking any action until an uniform

13.40 wide DP road is constructed deserves to be countenanced in the above facts in the interest of the public at large who will hugely benefit from the use of the said DP road which will connect the east west corridor once it is thrown open.

37. Needless to state that Corporation shall make all endeavour to ensure the width of 13.40 meters is developed and fully constructed. Today there is a fully developed 10.84 (35.56 feet) meters wide DP Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 33 Road which is my opinion can be thrown open to the public for their use to reduce the congestion and as per the development plan. What is seen is that Plaintiffs are taking undue advantage of the due process of law. The order dated 03.10.2023 does not delve upon 13.40 meters width but Plaintiffs have imported the same in that order in its pleadings. The aforesaid narration, observations and findings clearly point out in that direction and Plaintiffs’ stand in its pleadings. Hence I am inclined to levy costs rather exemplary costs on Plaintiffs rather all

3 Plaintiffs because their actions are clearly detrimental to public interest and the benefit of public at large and such actions can never be permitted by this Court. The dishonesty of Plaintiffs in their pleading while interpreting the order dated 03.10.2023 by mentioning the name of learned Judge on page No. 296 of the AO is not appreciated by this Court. In fact the said order does not reflect 13.40 meters vide DP Road. All is reflects is the construction of the DP Road.

38. Party and litigants have to approach Court with clean hands and they cannot interpret the order wrongfully to their advantage.

39. In view of the above observations and findings the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 is quashed and set aside. The Appeal from Order stands allowed. Resultantly Notion Motion No.315 of 2025 filed by Plaintiffs is dismissed. Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 34

40. Plaintiffs are directed to remove the 3 Suit structures forthwith. In the alternate, Corporation is directed to remove the three obstructing Suit Structures namely the Gate and Security Cabin on the north of the DP Road and the MS Tin sheets grills on the South side of the DP road if the same are not removed by Plaintiffs within 1 week from today without recourse to court and with police assistance if necessary and take immediate steps to throw open the connector / feeder DP road connecting Sahar Road and Sai Mandir Road for the benefit of the public at large

41. In view of the above, Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 all directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- totalling to Rs. 3,00,000/out of which Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be paid to Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai and Bombay High Court Original Side Library failing with the Collector MSD is directed by this Court to recover the said costs as arrears of Land Revenue from Plaintiffs and pay over the same to the beneficiaries.

42. Appeal from Order is allowed and disposed. Interim Application (St.) Nos.30861 of 2025 and 30862 of 2025 and 36164 of 2025 and Interim Application No.13090 of 2025 are accordingly allowed with the above directions. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 35

43. After the Judgment is pronounced in open Court, Mr. Savant, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 – Societies persuades the Court to stay the effect of this Judgment to permit Plaintiffs to approach the Superior Court to test its validity and legality on the premise that all along the Court had protected the impugned suit structures. The request for stay is vehemently opposed by both the Intervenors as also by the Corporation on the ground that there was no stay given by the Court and the Court had infact given relaxation to the Plaintiffs’ suit structures for security measures and now since the public road is ready it needs to be opened to the public at large.

44. I have considered the request made by Mr. Savant and would like to state that in the cross fire of the lis between the parties hereto it is seen that the public at large is the loser. Throwing open the connector feeder road which is a planned DP Road connecting Sahar Road on the East and Sai Mandir Road on the West through Jeevanvikas Marg is the need and necessity of the hour for the benefit of the pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic to ease congestion in the area. In that view of the matter, I decline the request made by Mr. Savant to stay the effect of this Judgment. The request is therefore declined. Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 36

45. Mr. Savant next persuades the Court to consider reducing the costs considering the fact that Plaintiffs – Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the proceedings are Co-operative Housing Societies comprising of Members who are residents of residential units. In this regard, certainly I am inclined to accept the request made by Mr. Savant and reduce the costs from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/- each to be paid by the Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the Kirtikar Law Library, High Court, Mumbai and Bombay High Court Original Side Library as directed herein above equally. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay Corrected / Modified Judgment as per speaking to minutes of order dated 18.12.2025. 37 TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE