JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Padgaonkar for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Pangam learned Advocate General who appears along with Mr. G. Shetye, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. P. Shirodkar for Respondent No.3, and Mr. Arjun Naik for Respondent No.4.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. In this case, an illegal and unauthorized construction was put up by Respondent No.4 in a property situated at Kumbharwada, Bicholim, Goa. The Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint against this illegal construction sometime in February 2012. Repeated complaints were filed between February 2012 and May 2012.

4. Ultimately, on 18/3/2013 a site inspection was carried out by the concerned Officer of the Bicholim Municipal Council and the transgression report depicting the illegalities was prepared. Based on the same, a show-cause notice dated 8/4/2013 was issued to Respondent No.4. After considering the cause shown by Respondent No.4, on 29/02/2016, a demolition order was made requiring Respondent No.4 to remove the illegal construction within 15 days from the receipt of the said order.

5. Respondent No.4 instituted an appeal before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on 21/8/2017. Respondent No.4 then instituted Writ Petition No.356/2018 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 20/12/2018.

6. Respondent No.4, taking advantage of some observations in the order dismissing his appeal, applied for regularisation of the structure. Mr. Arjun Naik for Respondent No.4 submits that as long as the application for regularisation is pending, no relief of implementation of the demolition order could be granted in this Petition. He also tried to urge how there is no illegality in the structure or, in any case, how the structure is worthy of regularisation.

7. At the outset, we do not appreciate the conduct of Respondent No.4 in putting up the illegal structure, which involves encroachment even on a public footpath. Respondent No.4 did not even acknowledge the illegality of his actions, but from 2014 onwards contested the proceedings, claiming that there was no illegality in the construction put up. After almost three authorities i.e. the Municipality, Municipal Appellate Tribunal and this Court ruled that the construction put up by Respondent No.4 was totally illegal and unauthorized, Respondent No.4, now wishes to commence a second inning based on the application for regularisation, fully confident that by this, he will retain the illegal structure for another decade or so.

8. In Commissioner vs. Tahir Isani – 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 122, this Court, in the context of attempts on regularisation of illegal constructions brazenly put up, made the following observations :

“36. Reliance on Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma – (1989) 2 SCC 495 is quite misplaced. That was a matter where some minor deviations were noticed in the process of renovation and repairs. This is not a case where some minor deviations are noticed in the process of repairs and renovation. Rather, this is a case where the Respondent has put up the clearly illegal and unauthorized second floor in the CCZ in defiance of the municipal bye-laws, rules, and regulations.

37. In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India - (2009) 15 SCC 705, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has, after adverting to its several earlier judgments on the subject, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent a substantial amount on the construction of the buildings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to state that unfortunately, despite repeated judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, illegal constructions continue to mushroom, and thereafter, pleas are made for regularization o