Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from unauthorized construction carried out by Respondent No.2, a builder/developer, adjacent to the Petitioner's residential premises in Ulhasnagar. The Petitioner, a resident of BK No.241, Room No.1, Bewas Chowk, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC) to demolish the illegal structure. The Petitioner alleged that the construction caused heavy water leakage and mental trauma, and that despite complaints and RTI responses confirming the unauthorized nature, no action was taken. UMC had issued a notice under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 on 22 August 2024, followed by a notice under Sections 267 and 478 on 27 September 2024, directing Respondent No.2 to remove the construction within seven days. When Respondent No.2 failed to comply, UMC sought police protection on 18 December 2024. Police initially expressed inability due to year-end celebrations but later granted protection. On 15 January 2025, when UMC officers arrived with police to demolish, Respondent No.2 informed them of a regularization application submitted on 7 January 2025, leading UMC to refrain from action. Meanwhile, interim applicants claiming to be owners of the demolished barracks under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, filed Interim Application No.3174 of 2025, contending they had title and had applied for regularization. They also filed a suit before JMFC Ulhasnagar and obtained a limited injunction from the Civil Court. The High Court noted that its earlier order dated 27 January 2025 had kept the writ petition pending, but the applicants falsely pleaded in their plaint that it was disposed of. The court observed that this was a deliberate misrepresentation to overreach court orders. On merits, the court held that an owner has no right to demolish and reconstruct without prior permission, and that filing a regularization application after notice cannot cure illegality. It relied on High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 918, Hanuman Jayram Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 BHC AS 8860-DB, and K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi And Others, (1974) 2 SCC 506, to reiterate that illegality is incurable. The excerpt ends before the final operative direction, but the court's reasoning strongly favored demolition and rejected the applicants' claims for regularization. The final relief order is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 - Enforcement of Municipal Demolition - Constitution of India, Article 226; Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, Sections 260, 267, 478 - Petitioner sought direction to UMC to demolish unauthorized construction by Respondent No.2 causing water leakage and mental trauma; UMC had issued notices and attempted demolition but refrained after regularization application; Court held that unauthorized construction cannot be protected merely because regularization is sought after notice, and that writ court must ensure enforcement of municipal laws - Held, the petition raised a valid grievance of inaction and the applicants' attempt to avoid demolition was not maintainable (Paras 1-4, 7-9). B) Municipal Law - Unauthorized Construction and Regularization - Right to Construct Only with Prior Permission - Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, Sections 260, 267, 478 - Owner/developer claimed right to repair dilapidated structure and later apply for regularization; Court rejected this contention, relying on High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 918 and Hanuman Jayram Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 BHC AS 8860-DB, and observed that a widespread belief exists that one can construct first and regularize later, which is impermissible - Held, owners have no vested right to regularization for construction undertaken without prior permission, and filing application after notice is an attempt to overreach law (Paras 7-9). C) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process and Misrepresentation - False Averments in Plaint and Suppression of Facts - Not mentioned - Interim Applicants falsely averred in their plaint that Writ Petition No.18551 of 2024 was disposed of by order dated 27 January 2025, when in fact it was kept pending to 10 February 2025; they also suppressed this fact before the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1786 of 2025 - Held, such deliberate misrepresentation and attempt to mislead the Court disentitled the applicants to discretionary relief (Paras 10-12). D) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Duties and Enforcement of Rights - Citizens Must Obey Law Before Seeking Constitutional Remedies - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Court stated that citizens who refrain from performing their legal duties cannot seek enforcement of rights under the Constitution; relying on K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi And Others, (1974) 2 SCC 506, it reiterated that illegality is incurable - Held, the petition for demolition was supported by the principle that illegal construction cannot be regularized or protected (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to demolish unauthorized construction by Respondent No.2; whether an owner/developer has a right to demolish and reconstruct without prior permissions; whether filing a regularization application after notice can legalize unauthorized construction and bar demolition; whether interim applicants who misrepresented court orders and suppressed facts can be heard or granted relief.
Final Decision
The provided judgment excerpt ends before the final operative order; however, the court held that the applicants/respondent no.2 constructed without permission, regularization after notice cannot cure illegality, and their misrepresentation disentitled them to relief. The court relied on K. Ramadas Shenoy, High Court on its Own Motion, and Hanuman Jayram Naik to hold that illegality is incurable. The final direction for demolition or dismissal is not included in the available text.
Law Points
- Article 226 of Constitution of India provides writ remedy against State inaction
- demolition of unauthorized construction is mandatory under Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act
- 1949 Sections 260
- 267
- 478
- owner has no right to demolish and reconstruct without prior permission
- regularization application after demolition notice is not a defence to illegal construction
- illegality is incurable
- citizens cannot claim constitutional rights without performing legal duties
- misrepresentation of court orders disentitles party to discretionary relief.
