Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hanuman Jairam Naik, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the demolition of his residential structure allegedly carried out by the respondents, including the Controller of Unauthorised Construction (CIDCO Ltd) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claimed that he had resided on the property since 1975, demolished his old house in 2022, and reconstructed a multi-storied building without obtaining any permission from the competent authorities, citing illiteracy as the reason. He received a notice under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on 18 July 2022, to which he did not respond. Instead, he filed a civil suit (RCS 58/2023) seeking to quash the notice, and obtained a status quo order on 15 February 2023. Despite the order, the respondents allegedly demolished part of the structure on 27 December 2023. The petitioner withdrew that suit unconditionally on 4 July 2024 and filed another suit (RCS 152/2024) on 18 May 2024 seeking a declaration of title, obtaining another status quo order. On 18 December 2024, the respondents allegedly demolished the entire property despite the status quo order. The petitioner sought a declaration that the demolition was illegal, compensation of Rs. 5 crores, and restoration of possession. The court held that the petitioner had blatantly violated the law by constructing without permission and failed to prove ownership or the age of the structure. The court rejected the defense of illiteracy, stating that a citizen who seeks rights under the Constitution must perform his duties. The court relied on the principle that 'illegality is incurable' as laid down in Sri K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi (1974) 2 SCC 506 and reiterated in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767). The court dismissed the petition and, though inclined to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs, refrained from doing so at the request of the petitioner's counsel.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights vs. Duties - Citizen's Obligation - A citizen seeking rights under the Constitution must perform his duties; illiteracy does not justify blatant violation of law (Paras 10-12). B) Town Planning - Unauthorized Construction - Illegality Incurable - Under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 54 - An unauthorized construction without permission cannot be regularized; the principle that 'illegality is incurable' applies (Paras 11, 14). C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Ownership and Long Residence - The petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove ownership or that the structure was 50 years old; bald statements are insufficient (Paras 12, 15). D) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Deterrence - Filing petitions based on false claims to obtain interim relief is an abuse of process; courts may impose exemplary costs to deter such litigants (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demolition of an unauthorized construction carried out without permission can be challenged on grounds of illiteracy and long residence, and whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration or compensation.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court declined to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs at the request of the petitioner's counsel.
Law Points
- Illegality is incurable
- Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized
- Illiteracy is no defense for violation of law
- Duty of citizen to obey law
- No equity in favor of illegal occupant
