Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Misleading Defenses and Non-Application of Mind Cannot Justify Illegal Construction: Bombay High Court Strikes Down Regularization of Unauthorized Construction

09 October 2024 11:51 AM

By: Admin


Bombay High Court quashed a regularization order passed by the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) that allowed the third respondent, a developer, to legalize an unauthorized construction over a public Nallah (drain) in Thane. The court ruled that the regularization was arbitrary, without legal basis, and a blatant misuse of powers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act. The High Court also criticized the TMC for misleading the court and attempting to justify the irregularity with irrelevant legal provisions.

The petition was filed by residents of the Tarangan Housing Complex, who challenged the TMC’s decision to regularize the construction of a road and RCC columns over a public Nallah that served as a natural watercourse. The unauthorized construction had been completed despite stop-work orders issued by the TMC in 2004. The construction obstructed access to the housing complex, which had previously enjoyed direct access to a service road.

In 2005, the TMC regularized the illegal structure, citing provisions of the MRTP Act and the MMC Act, which prompted the petitioners to challenge the legality of this regularization.

The key legal question was whether the TMC had the authority to regularize the unauthorized construction over a municipal Nallah, which posed significant risks to public infrastructure and water flow.

The regularization was arbitrary and violated provisions of the MRTP Act and the Development Control Regulations (DCR) of TMC.

The structure obstructed the natural flow of water, risking flooding and damage to public infrastructure.

The TMC had failed to provide any valid legal grounds to justify the regularization.

The TMC and the developer contended that the regularization was necessary to provide access to the housing complex and that the construction did not obstruct the flow of water in the Nallah.

The Bombay High Court, comprising Justices M.S. Sonak and Kamal Khata, found that the TMC’s regularization of the unauthorized construction was wholly arbitrary and a product of non-application of mind. The court observed that the TMC had initially issued stop-work orders and filed affidavits before the Civil Court stating that the construction was illegal and obstructed water flow in the Nallah. Yet, the TMC later performed a complete volte-face by regularizing the structure without any valid justification.

"The Municipal Commissioner and TMC are trustees of the power and property they wield and must exercise these powers in the interest of the public. Allowing regularization to benefit developers at the cost of public property like Nallahs amounts to an abuse of power."

The court also criticized the TMC for attempting to justify the regularization by invoking irrelevant provisions such as Section 227 of the MMC Act, which pertains to projections over streets and had no bearing on the case.

"It is unfortunate that the TMC sought to mislead the court by citing legal provisions that were not remotely applicable to the facts of the case," the judgment read.

 

Additionally, the court highlighted the broader issue of unauthorized construction being regularized as a matter of routine, despite clear legal prohibitions. Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings on illegal constructions, the court emphasized that regularization cannot be allowed merely by imposing fines or penalties.

The Bombay High Court quashed the TMC’s regularization order dated February 5, 2005, and ordered the demolition of the illegal construction. The court imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the TMC and the developer, directing them to pay ₹1,00,000 each to the petitioners. The decision sets a strong precedent against the arbitrary regularization of illegal constructions and reinforces the accountability of municipal authorities.

Date of Decision: October 7, 2024

Mr. Natvar T. Patel & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.​.

Latest Legal News