Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed CIDCO to demolish a five-building illegal complex constructed without its sanction. It held that the suit filed by the developers was an abuse of judicial process and dismissed it for suppression of material facts. The Court also ordered disciplinary and legal action against responsible officers and developers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
“Authorities have not just neglected their statutory obligations but have, by their conduct, actively permitted the perpetuation of illegal constructions.”
Facts
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking demolition of illegal structures raised by the developers on land falling within CIDCO jurisdiction. Though the Gram Panchayat granted an NOC for a residential house in 2011, the developers went on to construct an entire complex comprising five buildings without CIDCO approval. Despite multiple complaints, CIDCO failed to act, issuing only delayed notices and initiating no substantive enforcement action. Even after a 2014 notice under Section 54(1) of the MRTP Act and a subsequent FIR in 2016, no demolition occurred. During pendency of the writ, the developers filed a civil suit and obtained a status quo order, which the Court found to be based on material suppression.
Issues
- Whether the construction undertaken by the developers was illegal and unauthorized under the MRTP Act.
- Whether CIDCO and other authorities failed in their statutory obligations.
- Whether the civil suit was maintainable and filed with bona fide intentions.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the developers had flagrantly violated statutory requirements by building without CIDCO approval. They contended that despite repeated complaints and a CIDCO notice from 2014, no enforcement was undertaken. They alleged collusion and gross inaction by CIDCO and sought judicial intervention to halt the illegality and restore rule of law.
Respondents’ Arguments
The developers relied on a Gram Panchayat NOC but admitted, when questioned, that no CIDCO permissions were obtained. They pointed to a regularization application filed in 2025 and status quo orders obtained in a civil suit. CIDCO, in its defense, stated that notices had been issued and the regularization application was later rejected, but no demolition was undertaken as they awaited court directions.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the obligations under the MRTP Act and emphasized the statutory duty of planning authorities to enforce zoning and construction norms. It referred to multiple judicial precedents affirming the principle that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized post-facto and must be demolished irrespective of delay or investment.
Precedent Analysis
- K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udupi (1976) 1 SCC 24
Held that illegalities are incurable and must not be tolerated by planning authorities. - High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 918
Emphasized that ownership of land does not confer a right to construct without approval. - Abdul Razzaq Sunsera v. MCGM, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 832
Upheld the constitutional validity of provisions preventing misuse of civil remedies to protect illegal constructions. - S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1
Asserted that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from relief. - Rajendra Kumar Barjatia v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767
Held that illegal constructions must be curtailed “with iron hands” and not condoned. - Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 INSC 610
Reiterated that courts must adopt a strict stance against illegal constructions and discourage judicial regularization.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the civil suit was a tactical device to delay proceedings and protect illegal structures. It noted suppression of facts, including omission of the 2014 CIDCO notice, FIR, and the pending writ. The Court sharply criticized CIDCO for deliberate inaction and termed its conduct as aiding the illegal constructions. It held that the developers acted with unclean hands and were undeserving of equitable relief.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following directions:
- CIDCO was directed to demolish the illegal constructions within four weeks.
- Officers responsible for permitting and failing to act against the construction since 2014 were to face action.
- Regular Civil Suit No. 117 of 2024 was dismissed and the status quo order was set aside.
- The request for stay of the demolition order was rejected.
The matter was listed for compliance reporting on 28 July 2025.
Implications
- Reinforces that constructions without proper permissions are liable for demolition, irrespective of investments made.
- Establishes the court’s zero tolerance for suppression of facts and procedural abuse.
- Warns government authorities and planning agencies of consequences for regulatory failure or complicity.
FAQs
1. Can constructions without CIDCO permission be regularized later?
No. The Court held that illegal constructions cannot be regularized merely because of investment or delay in enforcement.
2. What action can courts take when a party suppresses facts in a civil suit?
The Court can dismiss such suits at the threshold under Article 226, especially if the suit is filed to obstruct justice.
3. Can status quo orders protect illegal constructions?
Not if the order was obtained by misleading the court or suppressing material facts. Such orders can be set aside.
Cited Cases and Their Significance
- K. Ramdas Shenoy (1976) – Laid down that illegal constructions must not be tolerated.
- Abdul Razzaq Sunsera (2013) – Validated powers of authorities to act swiftly against unauthorized constructions.
- S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (1994) – Courts should not entertain litigants with unclean hands.
- Rajendra Kumar Barjatia (2024) – Condemned the culture of post-facto regularisation.
- Kaniz Ahmed (2025) – Reaffirmed the need for strict judicial stance against unauthorized constructions.
