Back
"'Fraud Unravels Everything': Bombay HC Demolishes Defense in Building Permissions Saga
In a stern rebuke to developers who game the system, the has upheld the 's (UMC) revocation of building permissions for a 16-floor tower, ruling that consents obtained through "misrepresentation and incorrect material" are from the start. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata dismissed Writ Petition No. 14342 of 2024 on , rejecting pleas from Jhalak Constructions and partners Naresh and Sagar Wadhwani. The court refused a stay, paving the way for demolition of the near-complete structure.
From Vacant Plot to Vertical Ambition: The Contested Build-Up
The saga unfolded on a 1004.5 sq. meter plot in Ulhasnagar-5 (CTS Nos. 27918-27922, 27925, 30678), purchased by the petitioners in from the Jeswani family. Seeking to erect "Jhalak Paradise," they applied for development under . After scrutiny, public notices, and paying charges, UMC granted initial seven-floor approval in . Petitioners relinquished 345.52 sq. meters via a registered Release Deed for a proposed DP road.
A revised plan in 2021, backed by a Junior Engineer's report claiming no DP road impact, escalated approval to 16 floors in —another 41.16 sq. meters released. registered the project (completion by ), plinth certificate issued, and construction hit 14 floors (80% done) by late 2022. But complaints in 2023 triggered a Stop Work Notice, leading to show-cause notices and the revocation under , alleging 80% of the plot overlapped 24m and 36m DP roads.
Developers' Plea vs. Corporation's Crackdown: The Courtroom Duel
Petitioners, via , argued procedural purity: full fees paid, sites verified, lands released totaling 386.68 sq. meters, and permissions lawfully secured post-hearings. They decried the revocation as
, spurred by a politically linked complaint, with inadequate show-cause grounds and no prior hearing despite court orders. With Rs. 17 crores invested and buyers onboard, they sought equity against
"nipping the project in the bud."
UMC, represented by , countered with an affidavit from Assistant Director Lalit Khobragade: post-inspection overlays revealed massive DP road encroachment, impossible for prior officer Shri Mule—who was demoted in —to have missed. Permissions stemmed from "incorrect plans and material," constituting fraud. Patil invoked "," urging dismissal with costs; an intervener () backed UMC.
Supreme Mandates Guide the Gavel: No Mercy for Urban Fraud
The Bench dissected the duplicity: petitioners cited a 2021 report deeming the plot "unaffected" yet admitted releasing land for DP roads—classic . Echoing recent Supreme Court wisdom, Justices Gadkari and Khata (per Khata, J.) held investments or partial construction no shield for illegality. They drew from Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767), mandating "iron hands" against violations, decrying regularization as environmental sabotage. Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin (2025 SCC OnLine SC 995) reinforced: courts must shun "misplaced sympathy" to uphold .
Fraud rendered permissions ; barred equity. UMC's officer accountability (demotion) cleansed the system, aligning with judicial calls to punish delinquents.
Bench Bites Back: Quotes That Cut Deep
-
"A party who has mislead the Authority by tendering incorrect documents... cannot get advantage of his own wrong. Orders."
-
"The permissions granted to the Petitioners stand vitiated and are non-est in the eyes of law."
-
"Delay in directing rectification of illegalities... cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions."
(quoting Rajendra Kumar Barjatya ) -
"The Courts must adopt a strict approach... The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours."
(citing Kaniz Ahmed )
As noted in legal reports, this aligns with the Court's headline stance:
"Permissions Obtained By Misrepresentation Are Void."
No Reprieve, Razors Out: Fallout for Developers and the City
Petition dismissed; IA 568/2025 disposed. UMC ordered to enforce demolition per notice; compliance check . No four-week stay for Supreme Court appeal. Implications ripple: developers face zero tolerance for forged plans, reinforcing -UMC scrutiny. For Ulhasnagar, DP roads reclaim space; buyers stare at losses, but orderly urban growth prevails. A clarion call—play fair, or the courts will play hardball.
