The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concerns over the prevalent notion that illegal constructions can be legitimized post-construction, highlighting the alarming rise of such structures.
In a recent decision, the court dismissed a petition seeking to overturn the demolition of a property and demanding Rs 5 crore in compensation. The judges underscored that entertaining such petitions could lead to “utter lawlessness.”
The bench, comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata, considered penalizing the petitioner, Hanuman Jairam Naik, a resident of Navi Mumbai, with Rs 5 lakh in costs for attempting to mislead the court. However, they opted against this course of action following a request from his legal representative.
The court criticized the practice of filing petitions primarily to obtain temporary relief by misleading judicial proceedings. It emphasized that the imposition of fines serves as a deterrent against this behavior.
Naik aimed to contest the legality of the civic body’s demolition of his property in December 2024, seeking restitution for damages he claimed caused him mental distress. He also demanded the restoration of the demolished structure, claiming his old house was dilapidated, leading him to replace it with a new multi-storied building in 2022. However, the court highlighted that Naik failed to secure the necessary permissions for his reconstruction.
Ultimately, the bench ruled that an illegal act cannot be rectified, asserting, “The petitioner cannot simply use ignorance to justify engaging in illegal activities.” The judges emphasized that if the courts were to entertain such cases, it would result in complete lawlessness.
Despite receiving a demolition notice in July 2022, Naik did not take appropriate action but instead pursued multiple civil suits, ultimately withdrawing one and filing another in May 2024. This led to a status quo order, yet his property was still demolished in December 2024.
Critiquing Naik’s approach, the court noted his failure to undertake critical legal steps, such as securing an architect’s approval, despite his ability to file civil suits. The judges remarked on the broader issue of individuals believing that they can construct without prior approvals and regularize later, which has contributed to the proliferation of illegal constructions in Maharashtra.
The court concluded by addressing the inaction of state authorities, stating, “This permissive attitude fuels the aspirations of individuals like the petitioner.”
