Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. GADKARI, KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
Snehdeep Krida Mandal - Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2174 of 2024
Decided on : 17-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act - Illegal construction on land reserved for public use - Petitioners challenge actions of MHADA and BMC regarding construction of community hall on land reserved as open space for playground under DCPR 2034 - Court emphasizes the importance of preserving public spaces in urban areas and the need for strict adherence to zoning regulations. (Paras 1, 4, 20, 29)
(B) Public Interest - The court reiterates that unauthorized constructions undermine urban planning and public interest, and that authorities must act decisively against such violations. (Paras 18, 24)
(C) Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - The court discusses the constitutional validity of Section 515A of the BMC Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining suits challenging notices for demolition of unauthorized constructions. (Paras 10, 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenge the construction of a community hall on a plot reserved for playground in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, alleging illegal actions by MHADA and BMC. The Respondent No.3-Trust has been constructing on the plot despite its reservation for public use.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the construction is illegal and directs the demolition of the unauthorized structure, emphasizing the need to retain the plot as open space.
Issues: The main issues include the legality of the construction on reserved land and the responsibilities of MHADA and BMC in preventing unauthorized constructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the reservation of land for public use must be upheld, and that the authorities have failed in their duty to prevent illegal constructions, necessitating judicial intervention.
Result: Petition allowed; illegal construction to be demolished and plot retained as open space.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasizes the importance of preserving public spaces, particularly open land reserved for public use such as playgrounds, and condemns unauthorized constructions on such reserved land (!) (!) .
The construction of a community hall by Respondent No.3-Trust on land reserved as open space is deemed illegal, especially since there is no verified evidence that the previous structure was authorized or in a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction (!) (!) .
The authorities involved, including MHADA and BMC, failed in their duty to prevent or stop illegal construction, despite being aware of the violations and receiving multiple communications and notices (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The reservation of land for public use under the applicable development regulations must be upheld, and any modification or unauthorized construction on such land is illegal and warrants demolition (!) (!) .
The court highlights the misuse of legal processes, including the filing of suits in civil courts to obtain injunctions against demolition, in violation of statutory provisions that bar such courts from entertaining such challenges (!) (!) (!) .
There is a significant concern over the failure of BMC officers to act promptly and effectively against illegal constructions, which has led to prolonged unauthorized developments and resource misallocation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court underscores the responsibility of legal advocates to disclose all relevant facts and avoid misleading the court, and condemns the conduct of legal representatives who suppress material facts, leading to improper orders (!) (!) (!) .
The court directs the demolition of the illegal structure on the reserved land within one week and mandates that the land be retained as open space in accordance with the reservation (!) .
The court orders accountability and disciplinary action against officers responsible for permitting illegal construction and for misrepresenting facts to the court (!) (!) .
The judgment mandates that authorities undertake proper inquiries into the approvals and sanctions granted for the construction, especially regarding the misuse of public funds, and report on the compliance within specified timelines (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the legal bar on civil courts entertaining suits challenging demolition notices, reinforcing the need for authorities to pursue remedies through prescribed statutory channels (!) (!) .
The order includes measures to prevent further illegal constructions, ensure proper enforcement, and hold responsible officials accountable for their actions or inactions (!) (!) .
The judgment concludes with the disposal of the pending suit filed by Respondent No.3-Trust, and directs the relevant court authorities to update the disposal records accordingly (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the court’s stance on illegal constructions on public land, the importance of adherence to urban planning regulations, and the need for accountability from municipal and planning authorities.
JUDGMENT :
Kamal Khata, J.
1) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to challenge the arbitrary, capricious and patently illegal actions and omissions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA)-Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2-BMC, regarding plot of land admeasuring 585 sq.mtrs. that is a part of Cadastral Survey No.68A in Survey No.24, Hissa No.4(p) and 6(p) of Village Kirol, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400084 (writ plot) permitting construction of a purported community hall on the large chunk of land, that was reserved as open space for playground (ROS 1.4) under Development Control and Promotion Regulation, 2034 (“DCPR”). The Petitioners are aggrieved as the authorities are depriving the residents of open space in the crowded area of Ghatkopar, Mumbai despite the reservation as open space for playground on the writ plot.
2) Heard Mr. Akshay Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr. P.G. Lad, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1-MHADA; Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2-BMC and Mr. Viraj Parikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. Perusal entire record and the Affidavits in replies filed by the Respondents.
BRIEF FACTS:
3) Respondent No.3-Trust was registered in the year 1977 for celebrating Ganesh festival. A Ganesh Mandir was constructed on the writ plot and the balance open area was used for sports, religious programs, political meetings, social activities and recreational activities for senior citizens.
3.1) Apparently, in 1994, Respondent No.3-Trust had illegally constructed ground + upper floor structure admeasuring 90 sq. mtrs. which was let out on rent for small functions like engagement, naming ceremony etc. Thereafter, sometime in December 2023, Respondent No.3-Trust demolished the structure and started constructing new structure. A hoarding put up on the writ plot claimed that through the financial aid from the Member of Parliament (‘MP’) a ‘community hall’, under the Local Area Development Scheme, would be constructed by MHADA.
3.2) The Petitioners were informed that, Respondent No.3-Trust has purchased the writ plot from Zaverbhai Purshottam Nathu Charitable Trust, under the deed of conveyance dated 28th September, 2017. After obtaining the information, the Petitioner No.2 addressed letters to the local MP, MLA as well as the CEO of MHADA, requesting them to take cognizance of the reservation of open space for playground on the writ plot and not to permit illegal constructions thereon at the behest of Respondent No.3-Trust. They also requested to stop the illegal construction that had commenced on the writ plot that was reserved for Public purpose.
3.3) The Petitioners allege that, due to this illegal construction the debris blocked the sewerage lines and the wastewater started oozing out on the road causing hardships to the residents. Various letters were addressed by Petitioner No.2 requesting the authorities to take cognizance and stop the illegal construction of the proposed community hall.
3.4) On 27th February 2024, the Respondent No.1-MHADA by its letter advised Petitioners to apply to Respondent No.2 for conducting survey and handing over playground. Upon such application and information submitted to Respondent No.2-BMC, they on the same day, i.e. on 27th February 2024, called upon Respondent No.3 to handover the open plot of land by removing all illegal construction since the writ plot was reserved for playground as per DCPR with remark ROS 1.4.
3.5) The Petitioner No.4 by its letter dated 1st March, 2024 requested Respondent No.1-MHADA not to disburse the public fund since the Respondent No.2-BMC has directed Respondent No.3-Trust to handover the open space after removing the illegal construction thereon. The Petitioners through an Application under Right To Information Act, 2005 discovered that the amount of Rs.41,00,000/- was approved by Respondent No.1 for construction of Samaj Mandir on the writ plot for Respondent No.3-Trust
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving public spaces and the illegality of unauthorized constructions on reserved land, emphasizing strict adherence to zoning regulations.
The court mandated the BMC to fulfill its statutory duties by demolishing illegal constructions, emphasizing accountability and prompt action against unauthorized developments.
Municipal authorities must act promptly against unauthorized constructions, as they violate planning laws and undermine public interest.
The court established that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized and that compliance with municipal regulations is mandatory for legality.
The Municipal Corporation's failure to comply with Court orders regarding illegal structures constitutes contempt, necessitating immediate action to uphold the rule of law.
The duty of municipal officers to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, and the need for a well-considered approach by the Civil Court in dealing with applications for temporary in....
Point of law: Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the inte....
Municipal officers have a duty to take action against illegal and unauthorized structures, as per the provisions of the law and government directives.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
