High Court of Judicature at Bombay Directed Demolition of Unauthorized Construction by Respondent No. 2. Upholding the Rule of Law — Court Ordered Baramati Municipal Council to Act Against Illegal Construction

Sub Category: Bombay High Court
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Petition Maintainable — Civil Jurisdiction Not Barred — Unauthorized Construction — Demolition Ordered — Implementation of Statutory Notices — Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) — Sections 53(6a), 54 — Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — Sections 260, 261, 264, 267, 478 — Failure of Municipal Authorities — Duty to Act — Court Directed Demolition Within a Week — Non-Compliance of Injunction Orders — No Stay on Demolition — (Paras: 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20)

Held:  Writ Petition maintainable — Directed BaMC to demolish illegal structure within one week from the date of order upload.

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking directions to demolish unauthorized construction.

Parties and Relief Sought: Petitioners: Flat purchasers affected by illegal construction — Sought direction to Baramati Municipal Council (BaMC) for demolition of unauthorized structure. Respondents: Baramati Municipal Council (BaMC) and the alleged violator.

Reason for Filing the Case: Unlawful construction by Respondent No.2 obstructing Petitioners' natural air and light — Despite complaints and notices, no action taken by BaMC.

Previous Decisions: Civil Court had restrained Respondent No.2 from further construction — BaMC misinterpreted the order and refrained from demolition.

Issues:

a) Whether BaMC failed in its statutory duty to demolish unauthorized construction despite legal notices and court orders? b) Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable despite pending civil proceedings?

Submissions/Arguments: Petitioners: Argued non-compliance with legal notices and obstruction of property rights — Highlighted misinterpretation of civil court’s order. Respondent No.1: Admitted delay in action due to misunderstanding of the court order. Respondent No.2: Defended on grounds of ongoing civil proceedings — Failed to produce permissions for construction.

Ratio:

a) Civil Court’s order did not stay implementation of BaMC’s notices. b) Municipal authorities are duty-bound to prevent illegal construction. c) Failure to act on statutory powers results in increasing unauthorized structures.

Subjects:

Constitutional Remedies — Writ Jurisdiction — Unauthorized Construction — Statutory Duty — Municipal Authorities — Demolition — Injunction Orders — Civil Jurisdiction Bar — Rule of Law

Issue of Consideration: Madhukar Janardhan Dhole And Anr. Versus The Chief Officer And Ors.

2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 73

WRIT PETITION NO.6728 OF 2024

2025-02-07

A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

Mr. S.R. Ganbavale i/by Adv. Sangramsinh Yadav for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar a/w. Adv. Neeta Patil for Respondent No.1. Mr. Divyesh Jain a/w. Adv. Shantanu Kolhe for Respondent No.2.

Madhukar Janardhan Dhole And Anr.

The Chief Officer And Ors.

Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Directed Demolition of Unauthorized Construct...
Related Judgement
High Court Interpretation of Devasthan Regulations and Imposition of Costs Quashed. High Co...