The court emphasized the importance of addressing unauthorized constructions, preventing further violations, and taking strict action against those involved in unauthorized constructions.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the large scale illegal constructions carried out in Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation areas.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with this case any further, we would like to recapitulate the law declared by the Apex Court.

( 3 ) IN (M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others), 1999 (6) s. C. C. 464. The Supreme Court, in para 73 at page 529, observed as follows:

"the High Court has directed dismantling of the whole project and for restoration of the park to its original condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. The dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. "

( 4 ) IN para 81 of the judgment in the case of M. I. Builders Put. Ltd. , the supreme Court observed as follows :

"a "number of cases come to this Court pointing to unauthorised constructions taking place at many places in the country by builders in connivance with the corporation/municipal Officials. In a series of cases, this court has directed demolition of unauthorised constructions. This does not appear to have any salutary effect in cases of unauthorised construction coming to this Court. While directing demolition of unauthorised construction, the Court should also direct an enquiry as to how the unauthorised construction came about and to bring the offenders to book. It is not enough to direct demolition of unauthorised construction, where there is clear defiance of law. "

( 5 ) IN an earlier decision in (Dr. G. N. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority), 1995 (5) S. C. C. 762, the Apex Court has suggested action against officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction. In para 10, the Court observed as follows :

"before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of courts, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not, however, have happened for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite. "

( 6 ) IN a recent decision in (Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa and others), 2005 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)691 : A. I. R. 2005 S. C. 1