Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the demolition of multiple unauthorized commercial structures in Thane district, reiterating that no individual has a vested right to continue in illegal occupation or to demand regularization of constructions erected in violation of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”).
Justice Prithviraj Chavan underscored that municipal authorities are duty-bound to remove such structures and that courts must not interfere to protect illegality, observing:
“Illegal construction cannot be sanctified by sympathy, delay, or default. The law does not recognize any right to continue an illegality merely because it has existed for long.”
The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court directing that demolition and enforcement actions must continue “without obstruction or political interference.”
Facts
The petitioners were occupants of shops constructed on land within the jurisdiction of the Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC). They claimed to have purchased the units from a local developer between 1995 and 1999, supported by unregistered agreements and property tax receipts.
In 2023, the KDMC’s Building Permission Department issued demolition notices under Sections 52 to 56 of the MRTP Act, stating that the shops were constructed without any sanctioned building plan, commencement certificate, or occupancy permission. The petitioners responded that they had been in “peaceful possession for over two decades” and had been paying taxes, thereby seeking regularization under a proposed Amnesty Scheme floated by the State Government.
However, when the KDMC began demolition drives pursuant to High Court and Supreme Court directions in Subhadra Ramchandra Takle v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the petitioners approached the High Court alleging violation of their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Issues
- Whether long-standing unauthorized structures can be protected from demolition on equitable or humanitarian grounds.
- Whether municipal authorities are required to grant a personal hearing before demolition under the MRTP Act.
- Whether payment of property tax or electricity bills can confer legality on an unauthorized structure.
- Whether regularization schemes override the statutory obligation to demolish illegal buildings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the demolition action violated principles of natural justice, asserting that they were not given adequate opportunity to prove ownership or regularization status. They maintained that their shops had existed for over 25 years with municipal assessment numbers, electricity connections, and property tax receipts, implying tacit approval from the authorities.
They further argued that the municipal corporation’s delay in acting amounted to acquiescence, contending that they were bona fide purchasers who had relied on the developer’s assurances. Invoking Article 21, they claimed that sudden demolition would deprive them of livelihood.
Citing Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), they argued that the right to livelihood must be read into the right to life, and hence demolition without rehabilitation would be unconstitutional. They also sought protection under the State’s Amnesty Policy (2018) for regularizing small commercial premises constructed prior to 2000, arguing that the same principle should be extended to them.
Respondent’s Arguments
The municipal corporation opposed the petition, asserting that the structures were blatantly unauthorized and constructed without any approval, map, or sanction. It relied on inspection reports prepared by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, which confirmed that the buildings had no existence in the sanctioned Development Plan.
The respondents argued that payment of property tax does not confer legality, as it is merely a revenue measure, not a grant of title. They also cited multiple Supreme Court rulings holding that illegality cannot be perpetuated merely because the State failed to act earlier.
The KDMC pointed out that demolition notices had been served well in advance, affording petitioners sufficient time to respond. It further clarified that the Amnesty Policy excluded structures built on open spaces, roads, or lands reserved for public purposes, categories under which the petitioners’ structures fell.
The corporation concluded that any leniency would “encourage encroachments and defeat the rule of law,” urging dismissal of the petition.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Prithviraj Chavan analyzed the MRTP Act’s demolition provisions, particularly Sections 52, 53, and 56, which impose mandatory duties on planning authorities to remove unauthorized developments.
The Court reiterated the established principle that no equities can be claimed in favor of illegal structures, however old or extensive. The public interest in planned urban development overrides individual hardship arising from enforcement action.
The Bench also examined Article 300A of the Constitution, observing that property rights are subject to lawful regulation, and no person can claim ownership of property that violates planning laws.
It emphasized that Olga Tellis was not applicable, as that case concerned pavement dwellers displaced by state action, whereas the petitioners were commercial operators who willfully built on illegal foundations.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to and relied upon a chain of precedents affirming zero tolerance towards unauthorized construction:
- M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464 — Held that unauthorized construction must be demolished irrespective of expenditure incurred; “Rule of law must prevail over private gain.”
- Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai (2013) 5 SCC 357 — Supreme Court clarified that regularization cannot be granted for structures violating mandatory development norms.
- Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court RWA (2021) 10 SCC 1 — Directed demolition of twin towers; held that unauthorized construction amounts to an “engineered fraud on the statute.”
- Feroz Talukdar Khan v. Municipal Commissioner, Thane (2025) — Bombay High Court ordered demolition of unauthorized mosques and shops, holding that municipal failure cannot legitimize illegality.
- Subhadra Ramchandra Takle v. State of Maharashtra (2025) — Division Bench ruled that illegal construction abetted by officials is contemptuous of constitutional obligations.
- Nana Kene v. KDMC (2025) — Reiterated that tax payments do not create legal ownership or confer protection.
By citing these, the Court reaffirmed that the law must not reward illegality and that administrative silence cannot breed legitimacy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioners were fully aware that the structures lacked approval and had failed to produce any sanctioned plan despite repeated notices. Their plea of long possession was rejected, as the Court held that illegal possession does not ripen into legality by efflux of time.
Justice Chavan remarked:
“A statutory illegality cannot transform into a legal right merely because it is tolerated for long. The passage of time cannot whitewash illegality.”
The Court rejected the argument that property tax receipts could substitute for building permissions, noting that such payments are collected in good faith and do not imply approval.
It also dismissed the Amnesty Scheme plea, clarifying that regularization policies cannot override express statutory prohibitions or judicial precedents requiring demolition of illegal structures.
The Bench found the municipal action consistent with law and due process, observing that “notice and hearing had been duly afforded,” and no procedural infirmity was shown.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that:
- The petitioners’ structures were unauthorized and without legal sanction under the MRTP Act.
- Their claims based on tax receipts, possession, or passage of time cannot confer legitimacy.
- The municipal corporation acted within its statutory mandate in issuing demolition notices.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and demolition proceedings were allowed to proceed unhindered.
The Court sternly cautioned municipal authorities against selective enforcement, stating:
“The rule of law is the only foundation of civilized governance. Its compromise invites administrative anarchy.”
Implications
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s zero-tolerance stance against unauthorized construction across Maharashtra. It reiterates that courts will not intervene to protect illegal developers or occupants, even where structures have existed for decades.
The judgment also strengthens the authority of planning bodies like KDMC, TMC, and BMC to enforce demolitions swiftly without judicial restraint, provided they follow due process.
Most importantly, it clarifies that sympathy and delay do not legalize encroachment, and that citizens must verify sanction plans before purchasing property.
Judgments Cited and Their Relevance
| Case Name | Legal Principle | Application in Present Case |
| M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam (1999) | Unauthorized construction must be demolished. | Basis for demolition direction. |
| Esha Ekta Apartments (2013) | Regularization contrary to development norms impermissible. | Applied to reject Amnesty plea. |
| Supertech Ltd. (2021) | Courts must dismantle illegality despite investments. | Supported demolition mandate. |
| Subhadra Ramchandra Takle (2025) | Municipal failure cannot excuse illegality. | Parallels KDMC’s delayed action. |
| Feroz Talukdar Khan (2025) | Officers’ inaction equals dereliction of duty. | Cited for civic accountability. |
| Nana Kene v. KDMC (2025) | Taxes do not confer ownership or approval. | Rebutted petitioners’ receipts argument. |
FAQs
1. Can payment of property tax legalize an unauthorized building?
No. Property tax payment is a fiscal measure; it does not confer building approval or ownership.
2. Can courts protect long-standing illegal constructions on humanitarian grounds?
No. The Court held that sympathy cannot legitimize an illegality; all unauthorized structures must face demolition.
3. Does an amnesty or regularization policy apply to all illegal structures?
No. Regularization cannot override statutory prohibitions under the MRTP Act or judgments mandating demolition.
