Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in village Shil, Thane, within the jurisdiction of Thane Municipal Corporation, concerning a ground-plus-six-floor building constructed by respondent no.3 without any permission or approval from the planning authority. The petitioner filed a writ petition complaining of rank unauthorized construction and seeking demolition. Prior to this, the same Bench had passed a detailed order on 12 June 2025 in Writ Petition No. 5898 of 2025 (Smt. Subhadra Ramchandra Takle v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) directing demolition of 17 illegal buildings in the same village and ordering a judicial inquiry. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court but the proceedings were withdrawn. In the present case, the municipal corporation had issued a notice dated 21 February 2024 under Section 260 read with Section 267(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, when the construction was only at plinth level. Despite this, respondent no.3 continued construction and put up a full-fledged building of five floors, later adding more, and inducting occupants. An FIR was filed on 18 January 2025 but no criminal case appeared to have been pursued to conclusion. Respondent no.3 submitted an application dated 19 May 2025 seeking regularization of the illegal construction. The High Court observed that the entire construction from plinth to sixth floor was unauthorized, as no permission was ever applied for or granted. The court noted that the municipal officers remained mute spectators after the initial notice, allowing illegal construction to progress, be sold, and be occupied, indicating a permissive regime with possible covert blessings. The court referred to settled precedents including M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam, Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, and High Court on its own motion (Jilani Building). These authorities consistently held that brazen unauthorized construction cannot be tolerated and must be demolished. The court rejected respondent no.3's regularization plea, holding that regularization can never be of an illegal or rank unauthorized construction; it is only permissible for minor deviations from sanctioned plans and for genuine bonafide reasons. The court also held that no misplaced sympathy can be shown to violators or occupants, as rule of law must prevail. Consequently, the High Court directed that the demolition action already initiated by the municipal corporation be taken to its logical conclusion, and expressed deep anguish over the inaction of municipal officers.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Unauthorised Construction and Demolition - Wholly illegal construction without planning permission must be demolished - Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Sections 260 and 267(1) - The construction on Survey No.52 from plinth to sixth floor was made without any permission from the planning authority. A notice dated 21 February 2024 under Sections 260 and 267(1) was issued when only plinth existed, but respondent no.3 continued construction. Held that brazen illegal construction cannot be tolerated; demolition action initiated by the municipal corporation must be taken to its logical conclusion (Paras 3-6, 8, 13). B) Municipal Law - Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction - No regularisation of rank illegal construction - Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Respondent no.3's plea to regularise the wholly illegal construction was rejected. Regularisation can only be considered for minor deviations from a sanctioned plan and not for entirely unauthorized construction. Held that accepting regularization would create a regime unknown to law and contrary to constitutional principles (Paras 7, 15-16). C) Municipal Law - Duty of Municipal Officers - Inaction and connivance cannot legitimise illegal construction - Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - Despite the initial notice and later FIR, municipal officers failed to prevent further construction, allowing a full building to come up and be occupied. Held that such neglect indicates covert blessings and law cannot be allowed to be defeated by inaction; court expressed deep anguish (Paras 11-12, 14). D) Constitutional Law - Rule of Law and Judicial Review - No misplaced sympathy for violators or occupants - Constitution of India, Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) - The court held that occupants inducted without occupation certificate and on illegal construction cannot claim prejudice to prevent demolition. Rule of law must prevail over unauthorized construction; law does not allow sympathy for those who violate law with open eyes. Held that demolition is inevitable (Paras 9-10, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a construction undertaken wholly without planning permission can be regularised; whether demolition action initiated by municipal corporation must be taken to its logical conclusion; whether prejudice to occupants or a subsequent regularization application can prevent demolition of unauthorized construction; whether municipal officers' inaction after initial notice vitiates demolition.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the entire construction from plinth to sixth floor was wholly illegal and unauthorized. It rejected respondent no.3's plea for regularization, holding that regularization can never be of rank unauthorized construction. The court directed that the demolition action already initiated by the municipal corporation be taken to its logical conclusion. It expressed deep anguish over municipal officers' inaction and held that no misplaced sympathy can be shown to violators or occupants.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Unauthorized construction without planning permission is wholly illegal and must be demolished
- Regularisation cannot be granted for rank unauthorized construction
- Municipal officers cannot remain passive and allow illegal construction to progress
- Rule of law prevails over sympathy for occupants
- Demolition action under Sections 260 and 267(1) of Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act
- 1949 must be taken to logical conclusion
- Brazen illegal construction cannot be tolerated
