High Court of Bombay Dismissed Writ Petition Challenging Demolition of Unauthorised Construction — Held Illegality Cannot Be Cured. The High Court ruled that a petitioner cannot seek defense on grounds of illiteracy for unauthorized construction — Reaffirmed the settled principle of law that illegality remains incurable.


Summary of Judgement

High Court found no evidence of ownership and held that illegality cannot be cured — Refused to grant any reliefs sought by the petitioner. Petition dismissed 

Acts and Sections Discussed:

  1. Constitution of India — Article 226

  2. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — Section 54

Subjects: Unauthorised Construction — Fundamental Rights — Status Quo Order — Demolition — Illegality Incurable — Equities — Civil Suit

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Relief Sought: a) Declaration of demolition dated 18th December 2024 as illegal. b) Compensation of Rs. 5 crores for loss and mental agony. c) Restoration of possession and structure of the demolished property.

Reason for Filing the Case: Alleged illegal demolition of the petitioner’s residential structure despite the Civil Court’s order for maintaining status quo.

Previous Decisions: The Civil Court at Belapur had passed an ad-interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed property.

Issues:

 Whether the demolition carried out by the respondent authorities was illegal despite the status quo order? Whether the petitioner could claim equities on the ground of long-term possession and illiteracy?

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Counsel: a) Asserted that the demolition was ex facie illegal and in violation of the Civil Court’s order. b) Claimed that the respondent officers were personally liable for disobeying the court order. c) Cited Supreme Court judgments to support the petitioner’s contentions.

Respondents’ Counsel: Argued that the petitioner failed to obtain the required permissions for demolition and reconstruction — Contended that no ownership documents were produced.

Ratio:

A citizen cannot claim fundamental rights while violating statutory obligations — Long-term possession without legal permissions does not confer rights — Courts cannot entertain petitions seeking to regularize illegal acts — Held that allowing such petitions would result in lawlessness.

The Judgement

Case Title: Hanuman Jairam Naik Versus The State of Maharashtra And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LawText (BOM) (2) 250

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2025

Date of Decision: 2025-02-25