1. This is in a Writ Petition No. 2153 of 2023 between Ramesh Dattatray Pathak v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. Coram: G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ. Key Orders: 4 July 2025; 4 Nov 2025; 10 Dec 2025 (impugned rejection); 24 Dec 2025 (compliance/regularisation statement)

2. Background

Petitioner’s garage, long assessed by BMC and used as an office since prior to 1961–62, was demolished during redevelopment. BMC refused to include its area in the redevelopment proposal under DCPR 33(7), affecting entitlement.

3. Key Issue

Whether an old, assessed garage/non cessed structure, long used commercially, must be regularised (with penalty/change of user) and included in redevelopment benefits under DCPR 33(7).

4. Key Facts

1. Garage existence undisputed; assessed by BMC.

2. MHADA certification relied on BMC’s assessment (first assessment pre 1961–62).

3. BMC affidavit: garage assessed till 1980, later shown as “garage as office”; demolition noted, redevelopment underway.

5. Legal Points

1. Regulation 33(7) examined, especially . eligibility pre 30.09.1969.

2. Court held BMC cannot ignore its own records; must levy penalty/regularise and permit inclusion.

3. Executive Engineer’s rejection (9.12.2025) found unreasonable; Commissioner’s application of mind doubted.

6. Precedent & Principle

Where municipal records acknowledge long standing user/structure, authority must adopt realistic, law compliant regularisation (with charges) to avoid redevelopment deadlocks and repetitive litigation.

7. Ratio

In DCPR 33(7) redevelopments, undisputed garages/non cessed units with long assessment history must be considered for regularisation/change of user. BMC cannot mechanically refuse inclusion post demolition, nor shift entire burden onto occupants; such refusal fuels unwarranted litigation and ignores ground realities.

8. Conclusion

Court directed BMC to file 5 year data on (i) garages regularised, and (ii) Illegal structures regularised, with particulars/area in tabular form. Strong remarks made against “unwarranted litigation at public cost.” BMC later stated decision in principle to regularise the subject garage and reflect benefit in redevelopment plans.

9. Legal Note:

An independent or distinct garage in a Building, when not appurtenant to any flat, can be moulded into redevelopment benefits by first establishing it as a separate premises with its own municipal identity and lawful possessory rights, supported by evidence such as BMC assessment records, sanctioned plans, and documentary proof of occupation. Regularisation of its long-standing use (e.g., garage converted to office) is a planning cure that allows the Corporation to recognise it for redevelopment, though it does not itself confer ownership or society membership. Once regularised, the garage can be structured into redevelopment benefits either as in-kind rehab premises equivalent to its area, as FSI/BUA allocation within the scheme, or through cash compensation if a unit is impractical, provided the garage-holder has clear legal rights. Entitlement is argued as “eligible premises” rather than “member-flat,” and membership or conveyance can be addressed post-redevelopment through agreements. Practically, the roadmap involves fixing identity and eligibility, seeking planning regularisation with penalty, and locking benefits through a tripartite settlement to avoid injunctions. The overall takeaway, as reinforced in the Ramesh Pathak case, is that such garages must be converted from ancillary, ignorable spaces into recognised premises through documentation, lawful regularisation, and binding allocation mechanisms, ensuring redevelopment benefits are fairly extended rather than denied on technical grounds.

1. WP / Parties / Date

1. Writ Petition No. 9646 of 2021

2. Petitioner: Lunkad Sky Lounge Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

3. Respondents: M/s. Lunkad Sky Lounge Joint Venture & Anr.

4. Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.

5. Date: 24 December 2025

2. Key Issue

1. Can the Society demand conveyance of the entire plot (20,449.10 sq.m.) despite later sanctioned/completed commercial building?

2. Or must land be divided proportionately between residential and commercial components?

3. Key Facts

1. 2004: Layout proposed only residential Buildings A to F; MOFA agreements recorded 20,449.10 sq.m. land.

2. 20 July 2013: Plans amended → Planning Authority sanctioned commercial building (BUA 6,332.08 sq.m.).

3. Society did not restrain construction; commercial building completed.

4. 20 July 2017 plan: Total BUA = 28,775.60 sq.m.

   1. Society buildings: 22,443.52 sq.m.

   2. Office building: 6,332.08 sq.m.

4. Key Legal Points

1. Society’s claim for entire plot misconceived; commercial building necessitates proportionate division.

2. Competent Authority relied on faulty Architect Certificate (21 Feb 2017) → no computation of proportionate division.

3. Court: Land (20,449.10 sq.m.) must be divided in proportion to sanctioned BUA (Society vs Office building).

5. Principle : In a common layout with multiple sanctioned buildings, conveyance entitlement = proportionate to sanctioned BUA. Authority cannot rely on unreasoned architect certificates.

6. Ratio

If layout originally residential but later amended to include sanctioned commercial building, and society did not restrain construction:

1. Society cannot insist on entire plot.

2. Land must be apportioned proportionately (Society vs Commercial building) based on sanctioned BUA.

3. Architect certificate lacking computation → order liable to be set aside and remanded.

7. Conclusion

1. Order (18 Dec 2018) set aside.

2. Proceedings remanded for fresh computation of proportionate land entitlement based on sanctioned BUA.

3. Parties may file their own architect certificates.

4. Appearance: 12 Jan 2026.

5. Decision deadline: Preferably by 30 Apr 2026.

6. Petition partly allowed, no costs.