No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process

“A Litigant Who Touches the Pure Fountain of Justice with Tainted Hands Is Not Entitled to Any Relief”, Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), through Justice Kamal Khata, delivered a stern and reportable judgment in Preeti Manohar Sakpal v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr., Contempt Petition No. 330 of 2025 in Appeal from Order No. 874 of 2024.

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging refusal of injunction against demolition under Section 314 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, imposed exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000 payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, and closed the contempt proceedings with a warning to the Corporation.

The ruling squarely addressed whether a long-standing structure on a municipal footpath could claim protection based on electricity bills, tax assessments, and an unregistered agreement of 1986. The Court answered unequivocally in the negative, holding that encroachments on public streets can be removed without notice under Section 314 and that “no title, no right, no equity” can arise from unlawful occupation of public land.

The Appellant sought to restrain the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from demolishing a structure situated on M.G. Road near Tilak Nagar Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. The City Civil Court, Dindoshi, had dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking interim injunction on 7th May 2024, prompting the present appeal.

The Appellant relied on an unregistered agreement dated 12th September 1986, claiming that her father had acquired the premises for ₹95,000 from one Pandurang Gawade. She placed reliance on electricity bills, shop and establishment registration, non-agricultural tax payments, and alleged long-standing possession for over four decades. It was also contended that a notice under Section 314 was ordinarily issued against hawkers and that action, if any, should have been taken under Section 351 after granting a hearing.

The BMC, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Girish Godbole, countered that the structure measured 10.40 m x 1.6 m and stood squarely on a municipal footpath abutting Santacruz Railway Station. It was part of a demolition drive against 38 unauthorized stalls obstructing traffic flow and public movement. The structure had no sanction, no approval, and no proof of existence prior to the datum line.

The principal questions before the Court were whether the Appellant had any enforceable right in respect of the structure, whether Section 314 was properly invoked, whether assessment to property tax implied regularisation, and whether contempt proceedings warranted action against the BMC.

Justice Khata framed the matter in uncompromising terms, observing that the Appellant had retained possession of an “admittedly unauthorised structure” for more than six years after issuance of notice in 2019, benefiting from procedural delays.

No Title, No Right, No Equity

The Court found that the 1986 agreement was unregistered and related to “open space” on public land. It did not transfer any structure nor create any lawful interest.

The judgment categorically held:

“Payment of user charges to the Municipal Corporation, electricity bills, shop and establishment registration, or licences for commercial activity do not create or evidence title.”

The Court concluded that none of the documents established that the structure was authorised or existed prior to 1 January 1961.

Proceedings Under Section 314: Removal Without Notice

Rejecting the argument that Section 314 was inapplicable, the Court reproduced the provision and relied upon Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Premnagar Zopadpatti Committee Society (1991 Supp (2) SCC 712). The Supreme Court had held that land acquired for public purpose is a public place and encroachments can be dealt with under Sections 313 and 314.

The High Court reiterated that “street” under Section 3(w) includes a footway and any passage over which the public has a right of access. Thus, a structure on a municipal footpath falls squarely within the statutory definition.

“Consequently, any encroachment made thereon could validly be proceeded against under Section 314 of the Act.”

The contention that the notice was vague or intended for hawkers was rejected as legally untenable.

Assessment to Property Tax Does Not Mean Regularisation

The Court delivered a crucial clarification on a recurring urban litigation argument. Relying on Sidharam M. Yanagandul and reaffirmed by Laxmi Gopinath Shetye v. MHADA, the Court observed:

“Mere fact that a structure which is erected without the permission of the Planning Authority and unauthorisedly is subsequently assessed to the property tax by the municipal corporation would not change the unauthorised character of the structure nor would make the structure authorised from the date of assessment.”

The Court emphasised that municipal taxation extends to authorised and unauthorised structures alike and cannot be treated as deemed regularisation.

Abuse of Process and Clean Hands Doctrine

Invoking Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 114, Justice Khata reproduced the Supreme Court’s warning against a “new creed of litigants” who resort to falsehood and suppression.

The judgment quoted:

“A litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

The Court described the present case as a “textbook illustration” of misuse of judicial process and deprecated the attempt to legitimise unlawful occupation of public land.

Statutory Non-Compliance

The suit had been filed without complying with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 527 of the BMC Act. Instead of availing statutory remedies, the Appellant approached the civil court directly. The Court observed that the suit itself was “vulnerable at inception.”

Contempt Proceedings: Warning but Closure

During pendency, a status quo order dated 27th November 2024 was in force. The BMC partially demolished the structure during a demolition drive on 15th May 2025. The Corporation cited inter-departmental miscommunication and stated that the structure was reconstructed on 16th August 2025.

Justice Khata termed the explanation “unsatisfactory” but noted that demolition was inadvertent, part of a broader drive, and subsequently remedied. The unconditional apology tendered by officers was accepted.

The contempt petition was dismissed with a stern warning that any future violation would invite “strict consequences, including departmental inquiry and suspension.”

Municipal Accountability: Inquiry Ordered

In a significant direction, the Court expressed concern that the illegal structure existed “immediately behind a Municipal chowki and abutting a railway line” for over two decades.

The Municipal Commissioner was directed to initiate an inquiry to fix responsibility for prolonged inaction, warning that failure to curb illegal constructions “corrodes the confidence of law-abiding citizens in municipal governance and the rule of law.”

Exemplary Costs and Final Orders

The Appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹5,00,000 payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks, recoverable as arrears of land revenue upon default. Interim relief was vacated and stay refused.

The impugned order dated 7th May 2024 was upheld. The matter was listed for compliance on 24th March 2026.

The judgment stands as a forceful reaffirmation that encroachments on public streets cannot be protected through equity, tax receipts, or long possession. Justice Khata’s ruling reinforces that courts will not permit contempt jurisdiction or procedural tactics to perpetuate illegality.

Date of Decision: 10 February 2026