Mumbai: Bombay HC has slammed BMC for the “unholy haste” with which it demolished in 2024 a structure adjacent to Tata Memorial Hospital in Parel, where cancer patients were given temporary shelter and food. It directed the civic body to pay Rs 2 lakh towards “cost of litigation” to Mehta & Co, a partnership firm, saying it was “at liberty to recover the amount from the erring officers”.
“In a city like Mumbai, it is very difficult to get temporary shelter… I have no doubt in holding that the action of demolition not only deprived the plaintiff of his rights but also deprived cancer patients of their right to temporary shelter at the time of taking treatment,” said Justice Gauri Godse on April 4.
She said it was “an absolutely unfortunate case” where the structure was “high-handedly and illegally” demolished by BMC’s officers under the garb of redevelopment.
The firm was in possession of a 1,320sqft space, but BMC held that it was entitled to 538sqft after redevelopment. Aggrieved by the decision, the firm filed a suit on Jan 2, 2024, in the city civil court. On Jan 3, it served BMC notice that it would be moving for interim relief the following day at 2.45pm. But BMC demolished the structure the next morning.
The civil court on June 26, 2024, declined to order the structure’s reconstruction and held the demolition exercise was undertaken as per the Oct 18, 2023, order by the assistant commissioner (F-South ward) that said if the structure is not vacated in seven days, appropriate action would be adopted. The firm appealed before HC.
Justice Godse agreed with its advocate, Kunal Bhanage, that the Oct 18, 2023, order was not a final notice, and that it never called upon his client to vacate without complying with other directions such as temporary alternative arrangements, including transit rent. BMC’s advocate Chaitnya Chavan relied on the developer’s Oct 11, 2023, offer letter of Rs 35,000 rent to prove compliance. Justice Godse said it shows that in the absence of any arrangement for temporary alternative accommodation, BMC demolished the structure “with undue haste and lack of sensitivity”.
While Chavan said BMC followed guidelines for demolition of dangerous and unsafe buildings, Justice Godse said the guidelines refer to following principles of natural justice of intimating occupants to vacate and providing alternative transit accommodation or rent. In the present case, “neither steps were taken,” she said.
HC quashed and set aside the June 26, 2024, order, and directed BMC to provide the firm temporary alternative accommodation of 1,320sqft in the same vicinity, clarifying that it is to be provided until the handing over of the permanent rehabilitation component.