HC orders demolition of illegal building in Ghansoli

Bombay HC orders demolition of illegally built building in Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai, emphasizing public good over individual property rights.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently ordered the demolition of a building in Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai, after it was found to be built illegally and without permission from the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO).

HT Image

According to the court, ‘a building that is wholly illegal cannot be regularised only by levying a fine and charging high fees.’ The court emphasised that “An individual’s interest in his property (and here no individual has a legitimate interest in the property, to begin with) and his right to enjoy the fruits of that property are always subject to the larger public good and purpose.”

A bench of justices G S Patel and Kamal Khata was hearing a suo moto public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Monish Chintaman Patil shedding light on the proliferation of illegal constructions in Navi Mumbai.

The bench raised probing questions about the feasibility of regularising structures erected without legal title or permissions. Moreover, the court-mandated CIDCO and Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) to craft protective policies for their lands, advocating for measures such as fencing or signboards.

Patil, though lacking locus standi, brought to the court’s attention the illegal edifice, dubbed Om Sai Apartments, erected without permission on CIDCO land. Despite the petitioner’s limited legal standing, the court took the petition as a suo moto PIL, given the gravity of the transgression.

During the proceedings, CIDCO presented evidence asserting its ownership of the land, while developers adamantly argued for the possibility of regularising any construction. Despite the evidence, developers maintained that even without seeking any permission initially, they could later apply for regularisation, allowing illegal constructions to persist until such applications were decided upon.

They contended that although state laws require permissions from town planning for development, they also allow for the regularisation of certain illegalities, albeit without clear delineation. This perspective, however, was vehemently opposed by the amicus curiae (impartial advisor) assisting the court. They criticised it as undermining the entire planning process, rendering sections of the law practically meaningless. They argued that if this stance were accepted, it would negate the need for applying for permissions or adhering to regulations, fundamentally disregarding planning considerations.

The court agreed with the advisor’s assessment, denouncing the developers’ argument as fundamentally flawed. It highlighted the fallacy of isolating actions on a piece of land from their broader impact, characterising planning permissions as more than mere bureaucratic hurdles. The court said that allowing unchecked development without adherence to planning regulations would undermine the very essence of the planning process and contravene established legal precedents.

Consequently, the court ruled the building illegal and mandated the evacuation of all third-party occupants within six weeks.