Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the demolition of an unauthorized multi-storied residential structure in Navi Mumbai. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove ownership or obtain necessary construction approvals, thereby justifying the municipal action.

The petitioner, a resident of Navi Mumbai, had constructed a multi-storied building on land located at Sector 23, Darave, without obtaining requisite permissions from the authorities. The structure was demolished by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd (CIDCO) and the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) following legal notices issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act).

The petitioner claimed that he had been residing on the property for over fifty years and had reconstructed the building due to its dilapidated condition. He admitted to not seeking prior approval, attributing it to illiteracy. Upon receiving a notice from the authorities on July 18, 2022, he did not respond but instead filed a civil suit (RCS 58/2023) seeking to quash the notice. The Civil Court granted a status quo order, which was allegedly disregarded when CIDCO proceeded with partial demolition on December 27, 2023.

Following the demolition, the petitioner amended his suit to challenge a new notice issued by CIDCO on March 3, 2023. However, on July 4, 2024, the petitioner unconditionally withdrew the civil suit. Subsequently, on May 18, 2024, the petitioner filed another suit (RCS 152/2024) before the Civil Court at Belapur, seeking a declaration of title over the property. The Civil Court granted a status quo order on the same day, which was later extended until January 9, 2025.

Despite these legal proceedings, the petitioner alleged that the respondents completely demolished the structure on December 18, 2024. The petitioner then approached the High Court, filing the present writ petition, seeking the restoration of possession and a compensation of Rs. 5 crores for damages and mental agony.

The division bench, comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, dismissed the petition, stating that no individual can claim protection for illegal construction under the garb of fundamental rights. The court observed:

"A citizen who seeks a right under the Constitution is obliged to perform his duties as a citizen. In the garb of being an illiterate, the petitioner has sought to blatantly violate the law."

The court pointed out that the petitioner did not furnish any proof of ownership over the land and had failed to produce any documents indicating compliance with statutory requirements for construction. The court noted:

"Apart from bald statements made in the petition, the petitioner has failed to annex any supporting documents to prove his ownership."

The bench further observed that the petitioner had access to legal remedies and had actively pursued multiple civil suits. Given this, the argument of illiteracy was not a valid justification for disregarding legal provisions. The court stated:

"If the petitioner could file civil suits for injunction, he could well approach an architect. He chose not to."

Addressing the broader issue of unauthorized constructions, the court remarked that such actions have led to an increase in illegal structures across Maharashtra. The judgment referenced previous Supreme Court rulings reinforcing the principle that "illegality is incurable," citing Sri K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipi & Others (1974) 2 SCC 506 and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767).

The bench also dismissed reliance on Civil Writ Petition No. 295 of 2022, in which the Supreme Court had addressed the issue of unlawful demolitions. The court clarified that the Supreme Court had not provided blanket immunity to unauthorized structures, stating:

"The Apex Court neither intended to nor permitted a citizen to construct illegally."

Rejecting the petitioner’s claims, the court ruled:

"In view of the settled law and the admitted fact that the petitioner neither has proved ownership of the land nor the existence of the structure being 50 years old, he cannot claim any equities."

The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it accordingly. The bench noted that the petitioner had engaged in legal proceedings merely as a means to delay action against the unauthorized construction. While considering imposing an exemplary cost of Rs. 5 lakhs to deter similar frivolous petitions, the court refrained from doing so at the request of the petitioner’s counsel.

Case Title: Hanuman Jairam Naik v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 362 of 2025

Bench: Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata

[Read/Download order]