Court slams ‘build first, regularise later’ approach, rejects plea over demolition

The Bombay High Court criticised the “widespread belief” that illegal constructions can be regularised after they are built, expressing concern over the proliferation of such structures.

Rejecting a petition which sought to overturn the demolition of a property and demanded Rs 5 crore in compensation, the court asserted that if these petitions are entertained, “there would be utter lawlessness”.

Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata also considered imposing Rs 5 lakh in exemplary costs on the petitioner, Hanuman Jairam Naik, a Navi Mumbai resident, for attempting to “misguide the courts” with his petition, but refrained after his lawyer’s request.

“Petitions are filed solely with the intention of taking a chance and obtaining interim relief by misleading the courts in some manner or form,” the High Court said. On considering the fine, the bench stated that it was imposed “to deter this class of petitioners”.

The petitioner sought a declaration that the demolition of his property by the civic body in December 2024 was illegal and demanded compensation of Rs 5 crore for the damages and mental agony suffered. He also sought the restoration of the demolished structure.

Naik claimed that he owned a house on a plot of land that had become dilapidated, prompting him to demolish it in 2022 and construct a multi-storied building in its place.

The court, however, noted that Naik had admitted to demolishing and reconstructing the structure without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

The bench dismissed the petition, ruling that illegality cannot be rectified.

“The petitioner cannot simply use illiteracy as a defence for engaging in illegal activities. If such petitions are entertained, there would be complete lawlessness,” the bench observed.

The court also noted that despite receiving a demolition notice in July 2022, Naik did not respond. Instead, he sought legal relief through multiple civil suits, ultimately withdrawing one and filing another in May 2024, which resulted in a status quo order. Despite this, his property was demolished in December 2024.

The bench criticised the petitioner’s approach, stating that while he could file civil suits, he failed to take the necessary legal steps, such as obtaining an architect’s approval.

“If the petitioner could file civil suits for an injunction, he could have also approached an architect. He chose not to. The petitioner followed the widespread belief that one can first construct and then regularise it if a notice is issued by the competent authority.”

The court further remarked, “We find that this belief is often justified, as we have observed the rise of slums and illegal constructions in Maharashtra over time, with no action taken to demolish them. It is this inaction by the state authorities that fuels the ambitions of individuals like the petitioner”.