The need to adhere to statutory provisions and take appropriate measures to end illegalities.

Headnote:
Urban Development Department - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 47 - 286(2) r/w. Section 281(1) and Section 423 of the Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 - [47, 286(2), 281(1), 423] - The court discussed the unauthorized construction on the property, the repeated rejection of revised plans seeking regularization, and the responsibility of the co-owners and the Developer. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the submission of revised plans for consideration by the Corporation, with a further directive to demolish the unauthorized construction if not regularized.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner challenged an order dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner and giving consequential directions to the original applicant and the Nagpur Municipal Corporation in respect of the subject property. The Petitioner claimed that Respondent no. 3 had constructed illegal floors and shops without permission, depriving the Petitioner of her property rights.
Finding of the Court:

The impugned order did not legalize the unauthorized construction and required the submission of revised plans for consideration by the Corporation. The court directed the submission of revised plans and, if necessary, the demolition of the unauthorized construction.
Issues: Unauthorized construction, rejection of revised plans, responsibility of co-owners and Developer, and the legality of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless revised plans for regularization were submitted, there would be no adjudication of the unauthorized construction. It also emphasized the need to adhere to statutory provisions and take appropriate measures to end the illegalities.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the Petition was partly allowed. The court directed the submission of revised plans and, if necessary, the demolition of the unauthorized construction.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By the present petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated Nil, October, 2016 received by the Petitioner under letter dated 17.11.2016 from the Desk Officer, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. This order has been passed in appeal proceedings under the provisions of Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short 'Act of 1966') by Respondent no. 1-State. The impugned order dismisses the appeal filed by the Petitioner and gives consequential directions to the original applicant (Respondent No.3) and Respondent no. 2-Nagpur Municipal Corporation in respect of the subject property.

3. The relevant facts required to be gone into for the purpose of deciding the present Petition are as under :-

The Petitioner claims to be co-owner of property bearing City Survey No. 158, Sheet No. 222, admeasuring 1048.69 sq. meters situated in Mahal area, Nagpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). It is the Petitioner's case that all other co-owners of the said property have transferred their respective ownership right in the said property to a Developer and the said Developer alongwith Respondent no. 3 has developed the said property by constructing two buildings viz. Ahirrao Wada and Gayatri Plaza. Respondent no. 3 being one of the co-owner of the said property was instrumental in carrying out the above development alongwith the Developer and is occupying some portion therein. The remaining portion has been let out to various tenants. It is the Petitioner's case that Respondent no. 3 has constructed several shops in the parking space on the said property without prior permission of the statutory authorities and has also constructed illegal floors over and above the permissible limit without sanction and approval. It is the Petitioner's further case that by specific order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 5692/2013, Respondent no. 2-Corporation was directed to demolish the unauthorized portion of the aforementioned illegal construction on the said property. The Petitioner is aggrieved that her property rights are trampled upon and has therefore, move the present petition because Respondent no. 2-Corporation has not initiated any action and reluctantly such omission has given an unfair advantage to Respondent no. 3, who has continued with her illegal construction thereby depriving the Petitioner of her legitimate rights in the said property.

4. Some background is necessitated to be looked into as the same is relevant to the present case. This Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1201/2003 (which was previously numbered as Criminal Writ Petition No. 101 and 109/1999) by order dated 25.11.1999 issued directions to Respondent no. 2-Corporation and Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.), both planning authorities for the city of Nagpur, to carry out survey of buildings in Nagpur City and to take appropriate actions against errant owners of such buildings who were found to be letting out parking spaces to vendors or using them for commercial purposes. The aforementioned two statutory authorities conducted the survey and published a list of 61 buildings wherein illegal conversion and use of parking space for commercial purposes was noticed. This list of 61 buildings included the name of the said two buildings viz. Ahirrao Wada and Gayatri Plaza, which were constructed on the said property. This list came to be published in the daily newspaper "Nav bharat" on 18.08.2002 and on reading the same, the Petitioner came to know for the first time about the aforesaid aberration in respect of the said two buildings. Since the Petitioner being a co-owner had a share in the said property, being concerned, the Petitioner filed Intervention Application in pen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCHMilind N. Jadhav, J.Roopa - AppellantVs.State Of Maharashtra - RespondentWrit Petition No. 2456 of 2017Decided On : 25-09-2019

The need to adhere to statutory provisions and take appropriate measures to end illegalities.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Roopa - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2456 of 2017
Decided On : 25-09-2019