The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of law to remove illegal structures and the court's emphasis on the principles of law on removal/demolition of illegal constructions.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners whose illegal construction is questioned by the Municipal Corporation and now sought to be demolished, are before the Court assailing the notice dated 22nd November 2019 issued by the respondent Kalyan-Dombivali Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). By such notice issued under Section 478 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short 'the MMC Act'), the petitioners are called upon to remove the illegal construction within a period of thirty days from the said notice.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are in occupation of the land and the structure prior to the establishment of the Municipal Corporation for more than 35 to 40 years as also they are paying municipal taxes. The petitioners have contended that in the year 2012 notices were received by the petitioner for road widening and demolition of their structure. The Municipal Corporation had also undertaken demolition of some portion of their houses and shops. The petitioners have contended that at such point of time the Municipal Corporation had made oral assurances to the petitioners that the Municipal Corporation will grant extra F.S.I, and T.D.R. in lieu of compensation and would regularize the remaining construction, however, the Municipal Corporation has failed to regularize the remaining structure. The averments made in paragraph 6 required to be reproduced:

"6. The Petitioners states that the Petitioners have received the notices, in respect of road winding and demolition under section 260 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act in the year of 2012 and thereafter Corporation without giving any hearing and opportunity to the Petitioner, give a order to demolished some of the portion of their houses and shops and at that time the Corporation had given a oral assurance that they will grant the extra F.S.I, and T.D.R. for the purpose of compensation and regularized the remaining structure, but till the date K.D.M.C. failed to regularized Petitioners remaining structures. A copy of that notices is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit 'A' collectively."

3. The petitioners contend that despite such assurances of regularization, the Municipal Corporation has issued the impugned notice dated 22nd November 2019 under Section 478 of the MMC Act. The impugned order records that the petitioners were issued a notice dated 18th July 2018 calling upon the petitioners for a hearing on 24th July 2018 and at such hearing, the petitioners had failed to remain present nor any documents were submitted to the Corporation to show that the construction in question was legal. Accordingly as the construction of the petitioners being totally illegal, the municipal corporation directed the petitioners to remove the construction within thirty days from the receipt of the notice.

4. The petitioners contend that the action on the part of the Municipal Corporation in issuing the impugned notice is illegal. It is in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Officers of the Corporation never inspected the structures to ascertain whether it is authorized or unauthorized before passing the impugned order.

5 Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of the prayers submits that at least an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to regularize the structure declared to be illegal by the Municipal Corporation. He submits that such indulgence can be granted by the Court, only in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

6 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation would submit that the Municipal Corporation has followed due procedure in law. A notice was issued to the petitioners as on 18th July 2018 as per the provisions of Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, calling upon the petitioners to remain present on 24th July 2018, along with all necessary documents to show that the structure was authorized. However, the petitioners failed to remain present and eventuall