Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Jhalak Constructions - Petitioner
Versus
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, Through its Municipal Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14342 of 2024, Interim Application No. 568 of 2025, Writ Petition No.14342 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w Ms. Chitra Danekar, Mr. Karan Singh
For the Respondent : Mr. Vijay D. Patil, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Yogesh Patil, Smt. Leena Patil “B” Panel counsel
For the Intervener : Ms. Minal Chandnani a/w Mr. Rajesh Ranglani

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Girish Agrawal, Chitra Danekar, Karan Singh
For the Respondents: Vijay D. Patil, Yogesh Patil, Leena Patil, Minal Chandnani, Rajesh Ranglani

Development permissions obtained by fraud or misrepresentation are vitiated and non-est; courts must sternly reject regularization pleas based on substantial construction or investment, upholding planned development without misplaced sympathy.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 45 and 51 - Development permission granted after scrutiny, fees payment and area relinquishment for proposed roads - Subsequently revoked under Section 51 upon discovery that substantial plot affected by proposed roads - Permissions obtained by tendering incorrect plans and material, constituting misrepresentation and fraud - Such permissions vitiated and non-est - Fraud vitiates all orders - Party guilty of fraud not entitled to equitable relief - Substantial construction (80%) or investment no ground for regularization - Courts to take stern action against illegalities without misplaced sympathy, as delay, administrative failure or investment cannot shield violations - Strict approach mandatory to uphold rule of law and planned development. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12)

(B) Approbate and Reprobate - Cannot claim plot unaffected by roads relying on one report while simultaneously relinquishing area acknowledging road effect - Indicates knowledge and deliberate misleading. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners purchased plot, applied for development under Section 45, paid scrutiny fees, relinquished 386.68 sq. mts. for proposed roads via two release deeds, obtained initial 7-floor then revised 16-floor permission, registered project, obtained plinth certificate, constructed up to 14 floors. Stop work notice issued on complaint, followed by show cause notices and hearing, leading to revocation order holding plot 80% affected by 24m and 36m roads, permissions procured by fraud.

Findings of Court:
Permissions null and void due to fraud; revocation upheld; authorities directed to remove unauthorized construction; no stay granted.

Issues: Whether development permissions valid despite plot being substantially affected by proposed roads; whether permissions obtained by misrepresentation warrant revocation; whether partial construction or investment bars stern action.

Ratio Decidendi: Permissions procured by fraud or incorrect documents are non-est; courts must curb illegal constructions sternly, rejecting equity pleas based on investment or progress, prioritizing planned urban development and rule of law over individual interests. Result : Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners secured permissions after property acquisition and compliance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. permissions fraudulent; officer misconduct revealed post-inspection. (Para 3)
3. fraud vitiates permissions; denies equitable relief. (Para 4 , 5)
4. stern judicial action against illegal constructions mandated. (Para 6)
5. petitioners' inconsistencies prove misrepresentation and fraud. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. authorities must eradicate illegal developments decisively. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. petition dismissed; no stay, enforcement directed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) This Petition takes an exception to the impugned Order dated 16^th August 2024, passed by the Respondent No.1, the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC). By the said impugned Order, the UMC has revoked the development permission granted to the Petitioners on the subject property under the provisions of Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and called upon the Petitioners to remove the construction, failing which the Corporation will do the same.

2) Mr. Girish Agrawal, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submitted that, the Petitioners have purchased the subject property being Barrack No.2112, Room Nos. 1 to 4 and additional area Plot No. 345 (Part), bearing CTS No. 27918 to 27922, 27925, 30678, Sheet No. 73 to 74, Ulhasnagar - 5 admeasuring 1004.5 sq. meters from Shri Chanderlal Parsram Jeswani, Shri Jaidev Parsram Jeswani and Smt. Ganga Inderlal Jeswani by executing a duly registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28^th May 2019.

2.1) On 25^th November, 2019, the Petitioners made an application for development of the subject property under Section 45 of the MRTP Act. A Public Notice was also displayed by the Respondent No.1-Corporation inviting objections of the public at large with a view to ascertain any objection of persons aggrieved by the said development. The Petitioners paid scrutiny fees as per Regulation 2.2 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra, for scrutinizing documents, verifying the subject property as well as to ascertain whether the subject property is affected by any reservation or importantly whether the subject property can cause obstruction in the Development Plan of the Town Planning Authority.

2.2) Upon a scrutiny being carried out by the UMC by its letter dated 30^th January, 2020, the Petitioners were directed to pay development charges to the tune of Rs 4,79,950/-. The Petitioners deposited the development charges as well as executed a Release Deed relinquishing an area admeasuring 345.52 sq. meters in favour of Respondent No.1- Corporation and registered it on 29^th November, 2020. The said area was required for the proposed DP Road as per the Development Plan. On 3^rd December, 2020 the Petitioners were granted development permission with a sanctioned plan to construct building up to 7 floors. On 28^th January, 2021 the Petitioners applied for Revised building permission. The same procedure was adopted and the Petitioners again deposited Scrutiny Fees for similar verification. The site was visited and measurement was carried out in presence of the Commissioner of the Corporation.

2.3) On 1^st October, 2021 a report was prepared by the Junior Engineer Town Planner and Commissioner of Corporation, wherein it was recorded that, the subject property was unaffected by the 24-meter as well as 36-meter DP Road. By a Revised Development Permission dated 2^nd November, 2021, the Petitioners were granted permission to construct up to 16 floors. A second Release Deed dated 8^th December, 2020 was executed and registered whereby an additional area of 41.16 sq. meters was released since it was required for the DP Road as claimed by the Corporation. The project was registered with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and a Registration Certificate dated 22^nd December 2021 was granted under Section 5 r/w Rule 6(a) of the said Act/Rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document