Illegal Construction | Joint Family Property Dispute | MCGM Inaction | Mumbai Civil Court

Mumbai, February 12, 2026

In a crucial order concerning illegal construction on jointly owned agricultural land, the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai, has appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect the disputed property located at Rathodi Village, Malad (West). The order was passed in a civil suit filed by Mrs. Suzane Michael D’Sa, a widow and single mother, against her family members and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).

The case highlights growing judicial concern over unauthorised constructions, municipal inaction, and abuse of power in urban and semi-urban areas of Mumbai.

Facts of the Case: Joint Family Property and Alleged Illegal Construction

The dispute relates to open land bearing CTS Nos. 2498, 2499, 2506, 2252 and 2250, admeasuring approximately 5,000 sq. metres, situated at Rathodi Village, Malvani, Malad (West), Mumbai.

The said properties are ancestral and jointly owned by members of the D’Sa family. According to the Plaintiff, one of the brothers (Defendant No.1) commenced illegal and unauthorised construction on the open plot without:

• • Consent of the co-owners

• • Sanctioned building plans

• • Commencement Certificate (CC)

• • Conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use

The Plaintiff further alleged that the construction was carried out with the connivance of certain MCGM officials and political backing, enabling the work to continue despite repeated complaints.

Repeated Complaints to MCGM and Alleged Administrative Failure

Multiple complaints were addressed to the Building & Factory (B&F) Department of MCGM, invoking powers under:

• • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888

• • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act)

However, despite the construction being visible and ongoing, the MCGM allegedly failed to initiate effective action, forcing the Plaintiff to seek civil court intervention to protect her legal rights as a co-owner.

Proceedings Before the Dindoshi City Civil Court

The civil suit was instituted before the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, seeking:

• • Injunction against illegal construction

• • Directions to MCGM to take statutory action

• • Protection of joint ownership rights

Although the Notice of Motion for appointment of a Court Commissioner was argued and kept for orders for multiple hearings, the matter witnessed repeated delays.

Ultimately, the Court found that a prima facie dispute existed requiring immediate factual verification through a neutral judicial process.

Court Appoints Court Commissioner for Site Inspection

By order dated 12 February 2026, the Hon’ble Court appointed Adv. Pratibha Bari as Court Commissioner, directing her to: 

• • Conduct local inspection of the suit properties

• • Ascertain whether illegal or unauthorised construction is ongoing

• • Determine whether the land is agricultural or non-agricultural

• • Verify whether MCGM has taken any action against such construction

• • Record measurements and take photographs, if required

The Court also directed the MCGM to depute its concerned officer during the inspection. The matter is listed for submission of the Commissioner’s report.

(Order as reflected in Roznama dated 12.02.2026 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi)

Reliance on Bombay High Court Judgment on Illegal Construction

During arguments, reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court judgment in Feroz Talukdar Khan vs Municipal Corporation of Thane, where the Court strongly condemned:

• • Unauthorized construction on agricultural land

• • Inaction and silence of municipal authorities

• • Attempts to regularise rank illegal constructions

The High Court held that municipal inaction cannot legitimise illegality and that courts must intervene to prevent fait accompli situations. Given the near-identical factual matrix, the Dindoshi Court found it appropriate to appoint a Court Commissioner to ascertain ground realities.

Also Read Police Have No Power To Attach Immovable Property Under Section 102 CrPC Without Court Orders: Bombay High Court

Appearance for the Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

 

• • Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani

• • Adv. Sharon Fernandez

• • Adv. Jahangir Khan

• • Adv. Azeem Abdul

The legal team emphasised property law, municipal accountability, and co-owner consent requirements.

Legal Significance of the Order

This order is significant for several reasons:

 

• • Reinforces that no co-owner can unilaterally construct on joint property

• • Confirms that municipal silence does not cure illegal construction

• • Highlights the Court’s power to intervene where statutory authorities fail

• • Protects vulnerable litigants from coercive and irreversible construction

The appointment of a Court Commissioner ensures judicial oversight and transparency in disputes involving illegal construction and public authority inaction.

Conclusion

The Dindoshi Court’s order sends a strong message that illegal construction—especially on agricultural and joint family land—will not be tolerated, regardless of influence or delay tactics. The case reiterates that rule of law prevails over administrative apathy and that courts will act decisively to protect property rights.

The matter is now awaited for the Court Commissioner’s report.

The Law Suits, 

413, Golden Chambers, Opp Tanishq Showroom,
Next to Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, LandMark CitiMall,
Andheri Link Road, Andheri West Mumbai 400053 +91 8928 372392
adv.Bhimani@gmail.com