Bombay High Court · Judgment · 15.09.2023
No conviction under the MRTP Act without proof that the notice was served
The Bombay High Court upheld the acquittal of a person accused of using a society garage as a beauty parlour, because the Corporation did not prove service of the Section 53(1) notice or that the accused was the owner or occupier.
Key points
- Prosecution for unauthorised change of use depends on a notice under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act being served; its service must be proved.
- The prosecution must also prove that the accused is the owner or occupier using the premises, not merely present there.
- Failure to locate the garage on the sanctioned plan, a doubtful panchnama and missing documents were further reasons to uphold the acquittal.
The facts
The Municipal Corporation alleged that Garage No. 2 in a housing society in Santacruz was being used as a beauty parlour instead of for parking. A notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, dated 10 June 2002, gave one month to stop the use. On re-inspection the use continued, an FIR was lodged and the accused was charged. The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted him in 2006, and the State appealed.
What the Court held
The Court dismissed the appeal. The notice bore a signature and a date, but the prosecution did not prove who served it or how; the officer who gave evidence had no personal knowledge of service, and the original complainant was not examined. Without proof of service, the accused could not be found guilty. The Court also held that “any person” in Section 53(6) means the occupier, and the prosecution had not shown that the accused ran the parlour as owner or occupier. The officer could not locate the garage on the sanctioned plan, one panch said the panchnama was not drawn in his presence, and the other was not examined. The Court observed that a Corporation assessment certificate and a shop-establishment registration showed the garage being treated as a shop, but left those documents without further comment.
Why it matters
Societies that complain to the Corporation about misuse of garages, stilts or other premises should know what a prosecution needs: a properly served Section 53 notice, evidence that the person charged is the owner or occupier, and identification of the premises on the sanctioned plan. Gaps in any of these can end the case.
Fifteen-page judgment in English. This page summarises the decision for general information; it is not a substitute for the full text and not legal advice. Check whether the decision has since been appealed, modified or overruled.
Have a question about your society?
Write to the office with a brief description of the matter. Meetings are by prior appointment.