Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Illegal Structures Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Construction in Cantonment Red Zone

30 September 2024 4:08 PM

By: sayum


Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Lekha Ali Shaikh seeking to overturn the Cantonment Board's order for demolition of her unauthorized construction in a Red Zone area. The court, led by Justices Kamal Khata and M.S. Sonak, ruled that the petitioner had suppressed critical facts and failed to establish the legality of the structure. The court ordered the Cantonment Board to proceed with demolition and file a compliance report by November 22, 2024.

The petitioner, Lekha Ali Shaikh, owned land in Mamurdi, Pune, where she initially constructed a 750 sq. ft. building without obtaining the necessary approvals. Later, she applied for permission to make repairs and additional construction, claiming a deemed sanction due to the Cantonment Board's failure to respond to her application within the stipulated time. However, the Board rejected her application, citing the land’s classification as a Red Zone under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, prohibiting construction.

The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the Board's demolition order issued in January 2015.

The primary issue was whether the petitioner could claim deemed sanction under Section 238(6) of the Cantonments Act, 2006, despite constructing in a Red Zone where no building activity is permitted. The petitioner argued that the area was not declared a Red Zone when the original structure was built and that no action was taken by the authorities for years, implying tacit approval.

The court, however, found that the petitioner had failed to prove that the initial structure, constructed in 2009, was legal. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim for deemed sanction was rejected because she suppressed material facts, including her failure to pay required processing fees. The court ruled that payment of fees or the passage of time does not confer legality on unauthorized construction, particularly in restricted zones.

The court ruled that the petitioner's construction was illegal from the outset and could not be regularized. Justice Khata, delivering the judgment, emphasized that unauthorized structures cannot be legalized by applying for repairs or additional construction when the initial building itself lacked approval.

Citing Section 238 of the Cantonments Act, the court noted that deemed sanction cannot be invoked for construction in violation of public safety laws such as Red Zone regulations. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument that the area might be removed from the Red Zone in the future, stating that construction cannot proceed based on speculative future events.

In a strongly worded judgment, the court condemned the growing culture of unauthorized construction, stating: "A law-abiding citizen wonders: if a lawbreaker like a ‘slumlord’ can construct illegal structures on public and private land without facing consequences, why shouldn’t a private landowner build without permission or approvals?"

The High Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹1,00,000, ordering the Cantonment Board to demolish the illegal structure and file a compliance report by November 22, 2024. The court also directed the CEO of the Cantonment Board to explain why no action was taken for nine years after the original demolition order.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

Lekha Ali Shaikh vs. Chief Executive Officer

Latest Legal News