Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, flat purchasers residing in Baramati, Pune, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a directive to the Baramati Municipal Council (BaMC) to demolish unauthorised construction carried out by the second respondent on an adjoining plot. The petitioners complained to BaMC about the construction affecting their natural air and light. BaMC issued a stop-work notice under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and registered an FIR under Section 53(6a) of the MRTP Act. Despite these actions, the second respondent continued construction. The petitioners also filed a Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2024 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati, which resulted in an order restraining the second respondent from completing further construction of the first and second floors. However, BaMC did not proceed with demolition, allegedly due to the civil court order. The High Court found that BaMC misread the civil court order, which only restrained further construction and did not stay demolition. The court held that a writ petition is maintainable despite the pending civil suit, as the municipal authority has a statutory duty to act against unauthorised construction. The court noted that the second respondent had no valid defence and had wilfully defied the law. The court directed BaMC to demolish the unauthorised construction within four weeks and to recover the cost from the second respondent. The court also directed the second respondent to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition is maintainable despite pendency of civil suit when municipal authority fails to perform statutory duty to demolish unauthorised construction - Court held that the petitioner was not required to await the outcome of the civil suit as the municipal authority's duty is independent and the civil court order did not stay demolition (Paras 9-16). B) Municipal Law - Unauthorised Construction - Duty of Municipal Authority - Sections 53, 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Municipal council is duty-bound to demolish unauthorised construction and cannot stay action due to a civil court order that only restrained further construction - Held that the municipal authority misread the civil court order and must take active steps to enforce the law (Paras 9-11). C) Civil Procedure - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 433-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Civil court's jurisdiction is barred in matters falling under specified sections of the MMC Act - The failure of the municipal authority to point out this bar led to delay in implementation of notices (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Baramati Municipal Council is obligated to demolish unauthorised construction despite a pending civil suit and whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable in such circumstances
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed Respondent No.1 (Baramati Municipal Council) to demolish the unauthorised construction carried out by Respondent No.2 within four weeks from the date of the order. The cost of demolition shall be recovered from Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Writ maintainability despite civil suit
- duty of municipal authority to demolish unauthorised construction
- bar of civil court jurisdiction under special statutes
- wilful defiance of law not permitted
