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


Summary of Judgement

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

The Judgement

Case Title: Madhukar Janardhan Dhole And Anr. Versus The Chief Officer And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 73

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6728 OF 2024

Date of Decision: 2025-02-07