Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court severely reprimanded the Malegaon Municipal Corporation (MMC) for its “complete dereliction of duty” in failing to act against rampant unauthorized constructions on land reserved for a police station and staff quarters in Malegaon.
The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that inaction by municipal officers despite clear illegality amounts to gross violation of law and public trust, observing that:
“We wonder what can be of more priority to a municipal body than removal of illegal constructions. The rule of law cannot be reduced to a paper concept.”
The Court directed MMC to demolish all illegal and unauthorized constructions on the plot within 30 days, with police protection, and to ensure compliance in accordance with law.
Facts
The petitioners were owners of a plot measuring approximately 9,524 sq. meters in Malegaon, purchased by their predecessor under a registered conveyance deed dated 20 August 1986. The layout plan for the area had been duly sanctioned and non-agricultural permission granted.
Subsequently, the second revised development plan (2006) reserved the petitioners’ land for a police station and staff quarters, though no acquisition proceedings were initiated for years. Frustrated by government inaction, the petitioners issued a purchase notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, asserting that the reservation had lapsed due to non-acquisition.
Meanwhile, encroachments and massive unauthorized constructions emerged on the plot, allegedly with the connivance of municipal officials. Despite repeated complaints in 2021 and 2022, MMC failed to act. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel demolition of these structures.
Two sets of third parties sought to intervene, claiming to have purchased portions of the plot. However, the Bench clarified that ownership disputes were beyond the scope of the present petition, which focused solely on unauthorized construction.
Issues
- Whether the Malegaon Municipal Corporation failed to discharge its statutory duty under the MMC Act and MRTP Act to remove illegal constructions.
- Whether the dispute could be dismissed as a “private matter” between the landowners and alleged encroachers.
- Whether unauthorized construction on land reserved for public use can be tolerated or regularized under any circumstances.
- What action should be directed against the municipal authorities for their inaction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that MMC’s persistent inaction despite formal complaints demonstrated gross negligence and violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. They emphasized that the reservation for police quarters had lapsed, yet the corporation had neither acquired the land nor prevented illegal encroachment.
They pointed out that even the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Nashik, had confirmed the reservation’s existence and acknowledged the petitioners’ purchase notice. The State and Police Department, however, took no steps for acquisition.
The petitioners filed an additional affidavit listing the names of individuals who had constructed unauthorized structures on the land and annexed a site map showing the encroachments in red. They argued that MMC’s refusal to act amounted to abetment of illegality and sought directions for immediate demolition of all unauthorized structures.
Respondent’s Arguments
MMC, through its Commissioner, claimed that the issue was a “private dispute” between the petitioners and the occupants, who had allegedly purchased the plots from the petitioners. It argued that the matter involved disputed questions of ownership, unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Commissioner further stated that the corporation had “more important works of public nature” and limited manpower, suggesting that this dispute did not merit priority. It claimed that some action had been initiated, including issuance of notices under Sections 260, 267(1), and 477 of the MMC Act, but that demolition was delayed due to monsoon and lack of police protection.
The State Government and Town Planning authorities contended that the Police Department was the competent authority for acquisition and that the land’s status under reservation was intact.
This defensive and contradictory stance drew the Court’s ire, with the Bench calling it “shocking and unacceptable for a public authority entrusted with statutory duty.”
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the municipal corporation’s statutory duty under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the MRTP Act, 1966, emphasizing that planning authorities are legally bound to remove unauthorized structures and prevent encroachment on public or reserved lands.
Citing settled principles of public accountability and rule of law, the Court reiterated that municipal officers hold their powers in trust for the public and must act decisively against illegality. The Bench held that administrative excuses like manpower shortage or monsoon delays cannot override statutory duties.
The judgment reinforced the view that tolerating illegal construction perpetuates lawlessness, undermines urban governance, and erodes citizens’ confidence in the justice system.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on a series of landmark rulings to emphasize zero tolerance toward illegal construction:
- Subhadra Ramchandra Takle v. State of Maharashtra (2025) — Held that massive illegal construction by land mafias shocks judicial conscience; municipal inaction amounts to dereliction of duty.
- M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam (1999) — Supreme Court held that unauthorized construction “has to be demolished; there is no way out.”
- Feroz Talukdar Khan v. Municipal Commissioner, Thane (2025) — Reiterated that no leniency can be shown to illegal builders or negligent municipal officers.
- Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024) — Supreme Court directed strict action against illegal and unauthorized constructions, holding that administrative failure cannot justify delay.
- Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin (2024) — Declared that persons who build illegally cannot seek regularization, as doing so “undermines the deterrent effect of law.”
- Nana Kene v. KDMC (2025) — Confirmed that purchasers of tenements in unauthorized buildings cannot assert legal rights; the law must be enforced uniformly.
- Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court RWA (2021) — Emphasized demolition as the only remedy for massive illegal construction aided by corrupt officials.
- High Court on its Own Motion (Jilani Building, Bhiwandi) — Affirmed the accountability of municipal commissioners in failing to prevent or remove illegal structures.
Together, these precedents fortified the Bench’s reasoning that unauthorized construction can never be legalized, regularized, or ignored.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench delivered a scathing indictment of the MMC’s apathy, observing that the corporation’s affidavit displayed a “casual and callous approach” towards blatant illegality.
Justice Sathe, writing for the Bench, observed:
“It is shocking that the MMC considers demolition of illegal constructions a matter of low priority, while the city is riddled with rampant encroachments.”
The Court emphasized that courts have consistently condemned municipal lethargy, and cited the Supertech and Feroz Talukdar rulings to reaffirm that illegal constructions must be demolished “with iron hands.”
The Bench further noted that the Commissioner’s affidavit admitted the illegality, yet no demolition was executed—demonstrating deliberate administrative paralysis. The excuse of monsoon delays was rejected as untenable.
Accordingly, the Court held MMC squarely responsible and directed time-bound compliance for demolition.
Conclusion
The Court ordered MMC to:
- Demolish all illegal and unauthorized constructions on the disputed plot within 30 days, with adequate police protection.
- Proceed strictly in accordance with law, ensuring no further encroachment.
- Keep all private ownership disputes open for independent adjudication before competent forums.
The Court concluded:
“When the planning authority itself abdicates its legal duty, lawlessness festers. Illegal constructions strike at the foundation of civic order and must be removed without hesitation.”
All petitions and interim applications were accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Implications
This judgment adds to the growing jurisprudence emphasizing judicial intolerance toward illegal constructions in Maharashtra. It reinforces that municipal authorities are guardians of urban law, not passive observers, and failure to act invites judicial scrutiny.
The ruling serves as a precedent for strict accountability of municipal officers and underscores that citizens’ right to planned development is protected under Article 21. It is likely to impact similar cases across Nashik, Thane, and Mumbai, where civic apathy has enabled unauthorized development.
Judgments Cited and Their Relevance
| Case Name | Legal Principle | Relevance in Present Case |
| M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam (1999) | Unauthorized construction must be demolished; no judicial leniency. | Basis for demolition order. |
| Subhadra Ramchandra Takle v. State of Maharashtra (2025) | Illegal construction aided by land mafias demands immediate judicial intervention. | Applied to show systemic failure. |
| Feroz Talukdar Khan v. TMC (2025) | Municipal inaction amounts to contempt of public trust. | Paralleled MMC’s conduct. |
| Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (2024) | Delay or administrative excuses cannot justify regularization. | Rejected MMC’s excuses. |
| Kaniz Ahmed (2024) | Unauthorized builders cannot seek mercy or regularization. | Reinforced demolition necessity. |
| Supertech Ltd. (2021) | Collusion between developers and regulators must be penalized. | Cited for deterrence rationale. |
| High Court on its Own Motion (Jilani Building, 2024) | Accountability of municipal commissioners for illegal constructions. | Grounded personal liability principles. |
FAQs
1. Can municipal bodies delay demolition citing lack of resources or monsoon?
No. The Court held that administrative inconvenience cannot override statutory obligations to remove illegal structures.
2. What happens to buyers of flats in illegal buildings?
They cannot claim any legal protection or seek regularization; illegal construction cannot create lawful rights.
3. Can such illegal structures ever be regularized by paying penalties?
No. The Court reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s principle that unauthorized constructions must be demolished and cannot be legalized through payment or schemes.
