Bombay High Court: Belief That ‘One Can First Construct & Then Regularize’ Fuels Illegal Constructions As Seen From The Rise Of Slums In The State
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Petition challenging an alleged illegal demolition holding that illiteracy cannot be a defense for illegal acts.
The Bombay High Court remarked that the belief that “one can first construct and then regularize a construction” is often true as seen from the rise in slums and illegal constructions in the State of Maharashtra over a period of time.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the alleged illegal demolition of a multi-storied house, holding that illiteracy cannot be a defense for illegal acts. The Petitioner, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, claimed the demolition by the Controller of Unauthorised Construction, CIDCO Ltd. violated his fundamental rights and sought Rs. 5 crores in compensation. Noting that such Petitions were filed merely to misguide courts for interim relief, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakh on the Petitioner.
A Division Bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata remarked, “In view of the settled law and the admitted fact that the Petitioner neither has proved the ownership of the land nor has proved the existence of the structure being 50 years old cannot claim any equities and expect the Court to believe his statements. A Petitioner cannot simply seek defense on the ground of illiteracy to perform illegal acts. If these Petitions are entertained there would be utter lawlessness. We are bound by the law enumerated by the Apex Court and we concur with the observations of the co-ordinate bench and dismiss the Petition.”
Advocate Tapan Thatte represented the Petitioner, while Additional Government Pleader Snehal Jadhav appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
According to the Petitioner, he had been residing at the said property for more than 50 years. The original house was demolished due to its dilapidated condition, and a multi-storied structure was reconstructed without obtaining any permission. He received a notice under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, but did not respond. Instead, he filed a civil suit to quash the notice. The Civil Court had initially granted a status quo Order, but the demolition was carried out despite this.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “In our view, a citizen who seeks a right under the Constitution is obliged to perform his duties as a citizen. In the garb of being an illiterate the Petitioner has sought to blatantly violate the law.”
The Bench noted that the Petitioner, in the garb of being illiterate, sought the support of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in “in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.” The Supreme Court had held, "If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes property of a person only on the basis that person is accused of crime, it violates separation of powers; public officials who take law into their hands should be made accountable of highhandedness.”
However, the High Court clarified that the Supreme Court neither intended to nor permitted a citizen to construct illegally. “Apart from bald statements made in the Petition, the Petitioner has failed to annex any supporting documents to prove his ownership. If the Petitioner could file Civil Suits for injunction, he could well approach An architect. He chose not to. The Petitioner followed a widespread belief that, one can first construct and then regularize it, if any notice is issued by any competent authority,” it noted.
“We find that this belief is often true as we have seen the rise in slums and illegal constructions in the State of Maharashtra over a period of time and no action has been taken to raze them. It is this inaction by the state authorities that fuels the desires of the persons like Petitioners,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We find that despite settled law, such Petitions are filed only with a view to take a chance and obtain interim reliefs by misguiding the Courts in some manner or form. To deter this class of Petitioners, we were inclined to impose exemplary costs of Rs.5 lakhs on the Petitioner and dismiss the Petition. However, at the sincere request of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, we refrain ourselves from doing it.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Hanuman Jairam Naik v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:8860-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Tapan Thatte
Respondents: Additional Government Pleader Snehal Jadhav; Advocate Shahaji Shinde
