Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Demolition of Unauthorized Construction on Reserved Land. Petitioners failed to establish title or authorization for construction on land reserved for garden and playground under Development Plan, and demolition was preceded by due notice and opportunity of hearing.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: KOLHAPUR
  • 116
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Dr. Dattatray Baburao Kungulwar and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, challenging the demolition of their structure by the Solapur Municipal Corporation. The petitioners claimed that they were in possession of a property in Solapur, which they alleged was their ancestral gaothan land, and that the municipal corporation demolished their structure without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. They sought a direction to the respondents, the State of Maharashtra and the Solapur Municipal Corporation, to declare the demolition illegal and to restore possession or provide compensation. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the land in question was reserved for a garden and playground under the sanctioned Development Plan of Solapur. They argued that the petitioners had no title or authorization to construct on the land, and that the construction was unauthorized. The municipal corporation had issued a notice under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the structure should not be demolished. After considering the petitioners' response, the corporation proceeded with the demolition. The court examined the facts and the legal provisions. It noted that the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish their title or right over the land. The land was clearly reserved for a public purpose under the Development Plan, and the reservation had not been modified. The court held that the municipal corporation had followed the due process of law by issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing before the demolition. The court further observed that the petitioners' possession, if any, was not lawful, and they could not claim any right to continue unauthorized construction on reserved land. The court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Scope of Judicial Review - The High Court declined to interfere with the demolition of an unauthorized structure on land reserved for garden and playground under the Development Plan, as the petitioners failed to establish any legal right or title over the land. The court held that the demolition was carried out after due notice and opportunity of hearing, and the petitioners' possession was not lawful. (Paras 1-10)

B) Town Planning - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Reservation of Land - The land in question was reserved for a garden and playground in the sanctioned Development Plan. The court noted that the reservation had not been modified or withdrawn, and the construction was contrary to the plan. The court held that the municipal corporation was justified in taking action to remove unauthorized construction on reserved land. (Paras 3-8)

C) Property Law - Right to Property - Article 300A of the Constitution - The court observed that the right to property is not a fundamental right but a constitutional right. However, the petitioners failed to prove any lawful title or authorization for the construction. The demolition was not arbitrary as it was preceded by notice and opportunity of hearing. (Paras 5-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the demolition of the petitioners' structure on land reserved for garden and playground under the Development Plan was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and whether the petitioners are entitled to restoration of possession or compensation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish any legal right or title over the land, the demolition was carried out after due notice and opportunity of hearing, and no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Law Points

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
  • 1966
  • Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act
  • 1949
  • Right to property
  • Demolition of unauthorized construction
  • Gaothan land
  • Development Plan reservation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 409

Writ Petition No. 6562 of 2024

2025-11-25

M.S. Karnik, Ajit B. Kadetankar

2025:BHC-KOL:2764-DB

Dr. Ramdas Sabban for the Petitioner, Mr. R.P. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.1-State, Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni (Through V.C.) for the Respondent No.2

Dr. Dattatray Baburao Kungulwar, Mr. Eknath Baburao Kungulwar, Smt. Kalavathi Baburao Kungulwar, Mr. Bhanudas Baburao Kungulwar

The State of Maharashtra, The Solapur Municipal Corporation

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging demolition of structure by municipal corporation.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a direction to declare the demolition illegal and to restore possession or provide compensation.

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged that their structure on alleged ancestral gaothan land was demolished without prior notice or opportunity of hearing.

Issues

Whether the demolition of the petitioners' structure was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice? Whether the petitioners had any lawful title or authorization to construct on land reserved for garden and playground under the Development Plan? Whether the petitioners are entitled to restoration of possession or compensation?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the demolition was without notice and opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice, and that they had ancestral rights over the gaothan land. Respondents contended that the land was reserved for garden and playground under the Development Plan, the construction was unauthorized, and due process was followed with notice and opportunity of hearing before demolition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the petitioners failed to prove any lawful title or authorization for construction on land reserved for a public purpose under the Development Plan. The municipal corporation had followed due process by issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing before demolition. The right to property under Article 300A does not protect unauthorized occupation of public land. Therefore, no relief could be granted under Article 226.

Judgment Excerpts

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties. Subject-matter :- By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents, to declare that the ...

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 2024 before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. Rule was issued and the petition was heard finally with consent of parties on 25th November 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 300A
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
  • Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging MSME Council's Arbitral Award for Lack of Proper Conciliation Proceedings and Violation of Natural Justice. The Court set aside the award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Section...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Property Tax Reassessment for Failure to Exhaust Statutory Remedy. Petitioner CEAT Ltd. challenged reassessment under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 without first avail...