Bombay High Court
Meenanath Shivram Patil And Anr vs Vivek Balaram Deshmukh And Ors on 20 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:24553-DB
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1807 OF 2024
1. Meenanath S/o Shivram Patil, ]
age. 72 yrs. oc. Rtd from Indian Navy, ]
R/o House No.2047-A, Kamtha, ]
Menwadi Post + Tq. Uran, Dist. ]
Raigad. Pin - 400702. ]
2. Vijay S/o Mahadev Jadhav, ]
age 46 yrs. Occ. Pvt. Business, ]
R/o Room No.764-C- Patil Ali, ]
Near Pratik Bunglow, Bori Pakhadi, ]
Tq. Uran, Dist. Raigad. ] ...Petitioners.
V/s
1. Vivek S/o Balaram Deshmukh, ]
age. Major, occ. Business R/o. Sonu ]
Apartment "D" Wing, Kamtha Road, ]
Tq. Uran, Dist. Raigad. Pin - 4000702. ]
2. M/s. Vinayak Developers, ]
through Mr. Vinayak Jaivindra Koli ]
R/o. Mora Koliwada Post, N.A.D. (Karanja),]
Tq. Uran, Dist-Raigad. ]
3. Gram Panachayat Chanaje, ]
Taluka Uran, Dist-Raigad through ]
Sarpanch / Gramsevak. ]
4. Chief Executive Officer, ]
Zilla Parishad Raigad (Alibaug) ]
District Raigad. ]
5. Tahsildar Taluka Uran Dist. Raigad. ]
6. Collector, District Raigad. ]
7. City and Industrial Development ]
Corporation, through its Chief ]
Controller, illegal construction, ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SUMEDH
NAMDEO SONAWANE 1/17
SONAWANE Date:
2025.06.21
13:02:16
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
CIDCO Bhavan, New Mumbai. ]
8. The State of Maharashtra, ]
through its Chief Secretary, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032. ] ...Respondents.
Mr. Abhinandasn B. Vagyani a/w. Adv. V.R. Patil i/by Adv. S.V. Patil for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Adv. Sachin Pawar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Anish Khandeparkar a/w. Adv. Priyanka Acharya for Respondent No.4-
Raigad Zilla Parishad.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 8-State.
Mr. B.B. Sharma for Respondent No.7.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th April, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th June, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J.):
–
1) The Petitioners have filed this Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents Nos.5 to 7 to demolish the illegal construction erected by
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in accordance with the Notice dated 7 th March,
2014. They further seek directions to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 for initiating
appropriate Civil and Criminal actions against Respondent Nos.1 and 4 for
their inactions.
2) The Petitioners contend that, the Respondent No.1 started
construction on the land bearing survey No.71/2/A and Survey No.71/2/B,
2/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
based on the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Grampanchayat
Chanaje i.e. Respondent No.3, on 31st October, 2011. According to the
Petitioners, a mere perusal of clause 1 of the NOC discloses that, the
Grampanchayat had issued NOC for a house. Furthermore, clause 16 of the
NOC explicitly stated that, the Respondent No.1 was required to obtain
permission from City and Industrial Development Corporation of
Maharashtra (‘CIDCO’).
2.1) The Petitioners further contend that, the Respondent Nos.1 and
2 were well aware about the mandatory permissions that had to be taken
from CIDCO, as CIDCO had issued a letter dated 28 th November, 2011,
categorically informing them that, their land was falling under the
residential zone and that any construction would require CIDCO’s approval.
Despite being fully aware of this requirement, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
started construction on the said plot of land in the year 2013 without taking
necessary approvals from CIDCO.
2.2) In view of this blatant disregard for regulations, the Petitioners
lodged multiple complaints with the Grampanchayat Chanaje i.e.
Respondent No.3 namely, on 3rd December 2013, 7th December 2013 and
23rd December 2013, highlighting that the unauthorized construction
obstructed their access to their house and water well. Additional complaints
were lodged with the Panchayat Samiti, Uran on 30 th December, 2013 and
3/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
later with Collector, Raigad.
2.3) Upon receiving the complaint, the Collector, Raigad directed
the Tehsildar to make an inquiry and submit a report. On 20 th February,
2014 the officers of CIDCO conducted site inspection of the illegal and
unauthorized constructions and issued a Notice dated 7 th March 2014 to the
developers under Section 54(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) identifying the unauthorised constructions.
Despite acknowledging the illegality of these structures, CIDCO took no
decisive action to demolish them. On 9 th February, 2015, the Collector,
Raigad, issued a letter to the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Region,
confirming the findings of unauthorised construction.
2.4) CIDCO eventually filed an FIR (No.II 5/16) under Section
54(2) of the MRTP Act against the Developers i.e. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
at Uran Police Station on 6 th January, 2016. However, even after these
measures, CIDCO failed to initiate demolition of the illegal and
unauthorized constructions compelling the Petitioners to file the present
Petition.
2.5) The Petitioners assert that, despite service of the Writ Petition
on CIDCO on 15th January, 2024, CIDCO has willfully disregarded its
statutory obligations and failed to initiate demolition of the unauthorised
construction. The sole action undertaken by CIDCO was a belated
4/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
inspection of the illegal and unauthorized construction, conducted after an
inexplicable delay of seven months on 22 nd August, 2024. Such passive
conduct reflects a deliberate indifference to the law and a failure to uphold
its mandate.
2.6) The Petitioners further contend that, with a view to
demonstrate some semblance of action, CIDCO once again issued a Notice
under Sections 53(1)(A), 53(6)(b), 53(6) and 53(7) of the MRTP Act on
23rd September 2024. By this time, an entire complex comprising of five
buildings had already been constructed illegally by Respondents 1 & 2. This
belated issuance of notice appears to be a mere formality rather than a
genuine effort to address and/or prevent the rampant unauthorised
construction.
2.7) Upon receiving the notice, during the pendency of the Writ
Petition, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with one of the flat owners of
the complex, filed a Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 2024 before the Court of
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran against Respondent No.7-CIDCO.
Curiously, the Suit was filed under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 seeking a declaration that, the Notice dated 23 rd September,
2024, was null and void. Additionally, they sought an injunction restraining
CIDCO from demolishing the five wings of the complex.
This legal manoeuvre appears to be a calculated attempt to
5/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
frustrate the pending Writ Petition and shield the unauthorised
constructions from lawful action.
2.8) It is evident that, the Suit conspicuously omitted crucial
material facts and documents, including the Notice dated 7 th March 2014,
issued by CIDCO under Section 54(1) of the MRTP Act. Furthermore, the
Suit did not disclose the existence and pendency of the Writ Petition before
the High Court, which had been duly served on Respondent No.1 as early as
on 15th January, 2024. Additionally, the Order dated 18 th September, 2024
passed by this Court, was deliberately withheld, reflecting a clear attempt to
suppress material information and mislead the trial Court.
2.9) Upon hearing the Application filed by the Respondent Nos.1
and 2, (the plaintiffs therein) the Civil Judge Junior Division, Uran, granted
status quo Order on 17th December, 2024, which was extended from time to
time. In the meantime, Respondent Nos 1 & 2 sought regularization of the
said unauthorised structures by filing an Application with CIDCO on 27 th
January, 2025. However, CIDCO, instead of outrightly rejecting the
Application, merely informed the Respondents that the permission could
not be processed further on the same date. Notably, CIDCO refrained from
rejecting the Application despite the fact that, the record clearly indicated
that Notices regarding illegal constructions had been issued as far back as
7th March, 2014, and again on 23rd September, 2024. This passive approach
6/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
of the concerned Officers of CIDCO is inexplicable and suggests a reluctance
to uphold the mandate law.
3) Mr. Abhinandan B. Vagyani, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, contends that this case exemplifies yet another instance where
the Government Authorities have not only tolerated but effectively
facilitated illegal constructions, despite receiving multiple complaints from
the Petitioners. He asserts that, the Authorities, through their sheer
inaction, have effectively endorsed these unauthorised constructions by
merely initiating superficial processes and issuing notices without taking
any substantive action. According to him, this is a classic case where the
Authorities have not just neglected their statutory obligations but have, by
their conduct, actively permitted the perpetuation of illegal constructions
on the writ land.
4) Mr. Vishal Kanade, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 made a determined attempt to justify the construction,
claiming that it was backed by the permissions from the Gram Panchayat.
However, when specifically questioned by this Court, about whether the
requisite permissions were obtained from CIDCO, he very candidly admitted
that no such permissions were taken. Instead, he submitted that, an
Application for regularization of the structures was filed with CIDCO on 27 th
January 2025. He further submitted that, a status quo Order in favour of
7/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had been granted by the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Uran, District Raigad.
5) After hearing both Counsel, we directed the production of the
original proceedings of Regular Civil Suit. No.117 of 2024 from the Civil
Judge Junior Division, Uran, District Raigad. The proceedings were
produced before us on 19th March, 2025 and we carefully perused the same
in the presence of both Counsel. Upon examination, it was evident that, the
Suit conspicuously omitted any reference to the Notices issued by the
CIDCO, as well as the Writ Petition filed in this Court, which had been duly
served on the Respondent No.1 as early as 15 th January, 2024. This
deliberate suppression of material facts raises serious questions about the
bona fide in filing the Suit.
6) Mr. B.B. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent
No.7-CIDCO drew our attention to the Affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Bharat
Thakur, who was working as a Controller of Unauthorized Construction at
CIDCO. He specifically highlighted paragraph No.11 of the said Affidavit,
wherein it was disclosed that during an inspection conducted on 22 nd
August 2024, CIDCO Officials found residents occupying illegally and
unauthorisedly constructed buildings. Given the absence of any
construction permissions or sanctions for these illegal structures, CIDCO
issued a Notice under Section 153(1A) of MRTP Act on 23 rd September,
8/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
2024.
6.1) Mr. Sharma further informed us that, the Vice Chairman and
Managing Director of CIDCO has filed an Affidavit dated 4 th February, 2025,
in compliance of the Order of this Court dated 10 th January, 2025. He
emphasised that, the Regularization Application submitted by the
Respondent No.1 had been expressly rejected by CIDCO on 27 th January,
2025. Additionally, he drew our attention to paragraph No.16 of the said
Affidavit, which confirmed that, the subject lands were notified for
acquisition under the Public Notice dated 12 th October, 2022, and were
earmarked for residential use. He therefore assured the Court that, CIDCO
will proceed to take necessary action against the unauthorised constructions
immediately upon receiving further direction from this Court.
7) We have heard all the Counsel and have perused the papers
and proceedings before us, including the Suit filed by the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran, District Raigad.
8) We find this to be yet another case where the Authorities have
been complicit in promoting and tolerating illegal and unauthorized
constructions, despite being consistently alerted through written complaints
from citizens. We fail to understand why the Respondent No.7-CIDCO
deemed it necessary to issue a Notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act on
23rd September, 2024, while the Writ Petition was pending before this
9/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
Court. In our view, this Notice was deliberately issued to assist the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in initiating civil proceedings, securing a
favourable Order of injunction and thereby frustrating or delaying the
proceedings of Writ Petition pending before this Court.
9) This conduct by CIDCO is nothing but sort of an abuse of
statutory powers, especially when the law is well-settled by the Supreme
Court and this Court.
9.1) The Apex Court in K. Ramdas Shenoy V/s. The Chief Officers,
Town Municipal Council, Udipi reported in (1976) 1 SC 24, has
unequivocally held that illegalities are incurable and must not be tolerated.
Furthermore, this Court in High Court on its Own Motion V/s. the State of
Maharashtra through Principal Secretary & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Bombay 918 has categorically held that mere ownership of land
does not confer an absolute right to undertake construction and later seek
regularization.
9.2) A Division Bench of our Court in Abdul Razzaq Sunsera V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. reported in 2013 SCC
Online Bombay 832 :(2013) 5 AIR Bom R 343 upheld the constitutional
validity of section 515-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
(BMC Act) which is pari materia with Section 433 of Maharashtra
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (MMC Act) and in paragraph 17 has
10/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
observed as under:
“The State of Maharashtra and more particularly its
urban areas are plagued by a menace of unauthorized
constructions. The object of introducing section 515-A was to
ensure that recourse to civil remedies is not utilized with a
view to abuse the process as would generally result when
those responsible for unauthorized constructions use every
possible means to ensure that a delay takes place in the
disposal of proceedings, once a stay is obtained. In this
background, the legislative provision cannot be regarded as
being arbitrary.”
10) Despite such a clear and settled position in law, it is regrettable
that the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran, District Raigad proceeded to
grant a status quo Order, effectively protecting the illegal constructions.
Equally concerning is the conduct of CIDCO – an Authority established for
planned development – which has not only exhibited a deliberate inaction
but has also taken superficial steps, further encouraging illegal
constructions. By its conduct, CIDCO has not only fostered unauthorised
structures but has also jeopardized the interest of innocent flat purchasers
who, despite investing their hard-earned money, have become victims of
these illegal developments. These purchasers, who failed to exercise due
diligence by conducting proper title searches and obtaining sanctioned
plans, cannot be entirely absolved of their imprudence. Their recourse, if
any, lies against the Developer.
11) A careful examination of the Affidavit filed by Respondents 11/17 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:57 ::: sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
Nos.1 and 2 in response to the Writ Petition reveals a deliberate suppression
of material facts. The Affidavit conspicuously omits any reference to the
inspections conducted by CIDCO on 20 th February, 2014, and 22nd August,
2024. It further suppresses the fact that an FIR was registered against the
Respondents on 6th January, 2016, under the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act (MRTP Act). Additionally, the Affidavit fails to disclose
the Public Notice dated 7th August, 2015, issued by CIDCO, which explicitly
identified the structures in question as illegal and unauthorized.
11.1) The concealment does not end here. The Affidavit also makes a
patently false statement, claiming that the property was released from
acquisition proceedings and that building permission had been granted by
Gram Panchayat Chanaje. Such deliberate misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts constitute a serious attempt to mislead this
Court and undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.
12) The Apex Court, in its landmark judgment in the case of S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, has
unequivocally held that litigants who approach the Court with unclean
hands are not entitled to any relief and should be dismissed at the threshold
itself. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Court’s doors are not open
to those who engage in deceit, concealment of material facts, or
misrepresentation.
12/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc 13) In the present case, we are of the firm view that this is a classic
example where Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court with
unclean hands. Their deliberate suppression of material facts, submission of
false statements, and blatant misrepresentation of records leave no room
for doubt. Such conduct cannot be tolerated, especially in matters where
the sanctity of judicial proceedings is paramount.
14) The Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatia &
Anr. V/s. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3767 in paragraph 20 reads as under:
“20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that
construction (s) put up in violation of or deviation from the
building plan approved by the local authority and the
constructions which are audaciously put up without any
building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and
every construction must be made scrupulously following and
strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation
being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be
curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them
would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in
directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure,
regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment,
negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned
in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be
used as a shield to defend action taken against the
illegal/unauthorized constructions. That apart, the State
Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the
process of regularization by condoning/ratifying the
violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this
gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it
causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible13/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).docadverse impact on the environment. Hence, regularization
schemes must be brought out only in exceptional
circumstances and as a onetime measure for residential
houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of
land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability
and distribution of resources, proximity to water
bodies/rivers and larger public interest. Unauthorized
constructions, apart from posing a threat to the life of the
occupants and the citizens living nearby, also have an effect
on resources like electricity, ground water and access to
roads, which are primarily designed to be made available in
orderly development and authorized activities. Master plan or
the zonal development cannot be just individual centric but
also must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of
the public and the environment. Unless the administration is
streamlined and the persons entrusted with the
implementation of the act are held accountable for their
failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this
nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If
the officials are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and
would continue to turn a nelson’s eye to all the illegalities
resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution,
disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.”
14.1) Recently, on 30th April, 2025 the Supreme Court in the case of
Kaniz Ahmed V/s. Sabuddin & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 610 after
reaffirming the principles enunciated in the case of Rajendra Kumar
Barjatya (supra), in paragraph no.7 it held as under:
“7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while
dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not
readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of
buildings erected without requisite permissions of the
competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm
stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the14/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).docCourts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint
gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all
concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who
flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in
flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law
were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the
same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws,
which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society. [See:
Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c)
No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)].”
15) Accordingly, we find this to be a fit case to exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
prevent the abuse of process and to maintain the sanctity of the judicial
process. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to call for and dismiss the
Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 2024 that has been filed with oblique motive,
at this very stage, without allowing it to progress any further.
16) In the light of the overwhelming evidence of material
suppression, misleading actions, and apparent collusion between
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and the Officers of CIDCO, we are of the considered
view that the Petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly we pass the following Orders:
I. Respondent No.7-CIDCO to demolish the illegal constructions
on the writ land within a period of four weeks from today.
II. The Respondents Nos.5 to 7 to take steps and actions against
15/17
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
all concerned Officers who have permitted the continuance of
illegal construction since 2014 and take appropriate action
against not only the Officers of CIDCO but also against the
concerned Developers as well as Respondent Nos.1 and 2, as
per the provisions of the MRTP Act as more particularly stated
in the Notice dated 7th March, 2014.
III. The Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 2024 is dismissed as the same
is not maintainable, by exercising our our powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for not only suppression of
material facts and documents but also with a view to subserve
the ends of justice. The Order of status quo passed by trial
Court is accordingly set aside.
17. List the Petition on board under the caption for “reporting
compliance” on 28th July 2025.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
18. At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
submitted that, the operation and implementation of this Order may be
suspended for a period of four weeks to enable his clients to test the
correctness of the present judgment before the Apex Court.
16/17
::: Uploaded on – 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::
sns 19-aswp-1807-2024-J(1).doc
19. In view of the facts and discussion in the foregoing paras, we
are of the considered view that,the stay may not be granted. Accordingly,
the said prayer is rejected.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 17/17 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2025 03:16:57 :::