Case Note & Summary
The case involves six writ petitions filed by residents of Splendor Complex, JVLR, Andheri (East), Mumbai, challenging the demolition of certain structures in the complex by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The petitioners, Suresh Agarwal, Jagdish Shetty, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Anita Pathak, Adarsh Singh, Ritu Bhatnagar, Arvind Gangoly, and Munindar Kumar Verma, claimed that the constructions were authorized and that no prior notice was given before demolition. The MCGM contended that the structures were unauthorized, built in violation of the sanctioned plan and Development Control Regulations (DCR), and that due notice under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) was served. The court examined the facts and found that the petitioners had not availed of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 55 of the MRTP Act. The court held that the demolition was lawful as the constructions were clearly unauthorized and that the petitioners had no right to maintain such constructions. The court also rejected the plea for alternate accommodation, noting that the petitioners were owners of flats in the complex and had other properties. The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Unauthorized Construction - Demolition Order - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 53 - Petitioners challenged demolition of structures in Splendor Complex, JVLR, Andheri (East), Mumbai, claiming they were authorized and that no notice was given. Court held that the constructions were in violation of sanctioned plans and DCR, and that the demolition was lawful after due notice and opportunity of hearing. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Petitioners sought to bypass statutory remedies under MRTP Act. Court held that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appeals, and that the petitioners failed to avail of alternate remedy under Section 55 of MRTP Act. (Paras 11-15) C) Property Law - Right to Shelter - Alternate Accommodation - Petitioners claimed they would be rendered homeless. Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to alternate accommodation as they were owners of flats in the complex and had other properties. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demolition of alleged unauthorized constructions in the Splendor Complex was legal and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief against the demolition order.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed with costs. Demolition upheld as lawful.
Law Points
- Unauthorized construction
- demolition order
- MRTP Act
- DCR
- writ jurisdiction
- alternate accommodation
- natural justice
