Bombay High Court Dismisses Ashok Ramugade Demolition Plea In Borivali West
On July 8, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 72-year-old resident of Borivali West, ruling that utility bills and municipal assessment records cannot be used as proof of a structure's legality. Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata upheld the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) previous stop-work and demolition orders.
The court rejected the petitioner Ashok Ramugade's demands for the restoration of his demolished 120-square-foot room and Rs 80 lakh in compensation.
Ramugade claimed ownership of the room in Borivali West and argued that it was an old authorised structure. To support his claim that the premises existed before 1961, he relied on sale deeds, municipal assessment records, utility bills, and a business licence. He also argued that he had only carried out permissible repairs after receiving a municipal communication stating that no permission was required for tenantable repairs.
However, the High Court found that the petitioner failed to produce any sanctioned building plan or other reliable document establishing that the construction was legally authorised.
The Bench stated that while utility bills and municipal assessment records may indicate the existence or occupation of a structure, they do not establish title to the land or demonstrate that the construction was sanctioned under planning laws.
The judges also noted that while the sale deed referred to a room measuring about 120 square feet, the petitioner's own documents showed the structure measured about 246.92 square feet after the work he carried out. The court observed that permission to carry out tenantable repairs does not authorise an occupant to enlarge the area or reconstruct the premises contrary to a sanctioned plan.
The Bench cautioned against using old municipal assessment records to legitimise unauthorised construction or subsequent additions.
While dismissing the petition, the court stated that the petitioner was free to pursue appropriate civil remedies regarding his ownership or possessory rights. The Bench refrained from imposing exemplary costs on Ramugade considering his age.
