Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1777
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARIHON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
ARYAN WORLD SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AURHORITY AND ANR – Respondent
WP/6357/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Neeta Karnik, Sangharsh V. Waghmare
For the Respondents: Vijay D. Patil, Vijaykumar Dhakane, Balasaheb G. Ligade, Drupad Patil, Dhruti Kapadia
Unauthorized construction is inherently incurable and cannot be regularized. Local village bodies lack authority to grant building permits. Courts must adopt a strict approach to illegal construction, refusing to exercise discretion that would undermine town planning, encourage impunity, or reward non-compliance with the rule of law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 53(3) - Unauthorized construction - Request for regularization - Local village body lacks legal authority to grant construction permission - Illegality is incurable - Strict approach required regarding non-compliant structures - Administrative failures or past negligence cannot be used as a shield against demolition orders - Regularization is not a right and cannot be granted for structures built in blatant violation of regional planning norms. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial restraint - Exercise of discretionary power - Sympathy based on the nature of the institution serves no ground for legalizing illegal construction - Courts cannot engage in judicial regularization as it undermines the rule of law and encourages a culture of impunity. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing the demolition of a building, claiming prior approval from a village authority and citing its role as a service provider to numerous students. The institution's application for regularizing the structure was rejected by the planning authority, prompting a challenge against the demolition order.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that village-level authorities lack jurisdiction to approve building constructions and that such unauthorized structures are inherently illegal. It emphasized that administrative failure or the institutional nature of the user does not justify or cure the illegality of the construction.
Issues: Whether construction permitted by an unauthorized local body can be regularized under the statute and whether the public service status of an organization necessitates judicial leniency regarding unauthorized building activity.
Ratio Decidendi: Illegality in building construction is incurable. The court established that allowing regularization of unauthorized structures would undermine orderly development, negatively impact environmental resources, and foster a culture of impunity. Regulatory compliance is mandatory, and illegal structures must be addressed with a strict approach to uphold the rule of law.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions for the state to initiate legal action against the local officials who permitted the unauthorized construction.
2025:BHC-AS:21646-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 17105 OF 2025
1. Aryan World School ]
A Charitable Educational Institution ] Registered under the Maharashtra Public ] Trusts Act, 1950, Through the Manager ] Shri Milind Ladge, ] Office Address: At Survey No.12/5/1, ] Bhilarewadi, Taluka Haveli, ]
Pune – 411 043. ] ...Petitioner.
V/s.
1. Pune Metropolitan Regional Development ]
Authority [PMRDA] ] Through its Commissioner, Having address at: ] Having Address at 3rd floor, PCNTDA, ] New Administrative Building, Near Akurdi ] Railway Station, Pune 411 044. ] Email: comm@pmrda.gov.in ]
2. Devidas Bhimrao Mundfane ]
Address : 9992/993/13, Laxmi Park, ] Rajendra Nagar, Lalbahadur Shashtri Road, ] Navi Peth, Pune – 411030 ]
3. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Copy to be served to the Government Pleader) ] … Respondents ______________________________________
Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Sangharsh V. Waghmare for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Vijaykumar Dhakane for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Balasaheb G. Ligade, a/w Mr. Drupad Patil for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent No.3-State.
_____________________________________________
Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date:
2025.05.09 1/9 +0530 CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 8th May, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th May, 2025 Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) Not on board. Taken on board.
2) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek setting aside of the Order dated 17th April 2025 passed by the Tahasildar and Designated officer Pune, Metropolitan Region Development Authority (‘PMRDA’)- Respondent No.1.
3) The Petitioners claim to be a renowned non-profit educational institution located in Pune, Metropolitan Region. This educational institution serves around 2000 students from Standard 1 to Standard 10.
4) Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that, they are a reputed school and they have been issued this Order for demolition without giving a hearing and without considering all the documents.
5) After hearing her, we inquired if she had sanctioned plans of the constructed building from any local authority. In response she contended that the structure was constructed based on the No Objection Certificate issued by the Grampanchayat, dated 1st October 2007. According to her, the Grampanchayat was the relevant authority, before the establishment of the PMRDA in 2016 and based on their permission the Petitioners were entitled to construct.
6) Ms. Karnik submitted that, immediately after having received the Notice from the Respondent No.1, they have made an application for regularization of the structure. She contends that, the Petitioners’ application dated 17th January, 2025 was rejected by the PMRDA on 23rd January, 2025. Moreover, as per the Order dated 17th April 2025, the Petitioners have been called upon to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days. It is under these circumstances that the present Petition has been filed.
7) Mr. Vijay Patil, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1, submits that, the structure constructed is illegal. He submits that, the Petitioner has not produced any document to show that they had received any permission for such a construction. He submits that the Petition be dismissed.
8) We have heard both counsels and perused the record.
9) This is yet another case where illegal construction has been erected based on the ‘No Objection Certificate’ granted by the Gram Panchayat for which an application for regularizing the same was made and is rejected.
10) In numerous cases the Courts have held that the Gram Panchayat has no authority to grant permission for construction. Recent decisions are listed herein bellow for ready reference :-
(i) Manoj Ramanand Prajapati V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8743,
