The Mumbai High Court criticized the “universal belief” that illegal construction can be formalized after construction, which expressed concern about the spread of such structures.
The court rejected the petition attempting to overturn the demolition of the property and demanded compensation of Rs 5 crore, thus claiming that if the petitions were entertaining, it would be “will be totally illegal”.
Justices of Gadkari and Kamal Khata are also considering imposing an exemplary fee of Rs 5 lakh for petitioners, Navi Mumbai resident Hanuman Jairam Naik tried to “mislead the court” with his petition, but refused after his lawyer requested it.
The High Court said: “The petition is merely intended to take this opportunity and obtain interim relief by misleading the court in some way or form.” In considering the fine, the bench said it was an imposition to “stop such petitioners”.
The petitioner demanded that it be declared illegal for the citizen agency to demolish its property by December 2024, seeking damages of Rs 5 crore and mental distress. He also seeks to restore the demolished structure.
Naik claims he owns a house on a dilapidated land, prompting him to demolish it in 2022 and build a multi-storey building at its location.
However, the court noted that Naik had admitted to demolishing and rebuilding the structure without permission from the competent authorities.
The judge dismissed the petition and ruled that it was impossible to correct the illegality.
The substitute noted: “Petitioners cannot simply use illiteracy as a defense to engage in illegal activities. If such petitions are recreated, there will be a complete violation of the law.”
The court also noted that despite receiving the demolition notice in July 2022, Naik still did not respond. Instead, he sought legal remedies through multiple civil lawsuits, eventually withdrawing another lawsuit in May 2024 and filing another citizen lawsuit, which led to a status quo order. Nevertheless, his property was demolished in December 2024.
The bench criticized the petitioner’s approach and noted that while he could file a civil lawsuit, he failed to take necessary legal steps, such as obtaining the architect’s approval.
“If the petitioner can file a citizenship lawsuit to create an injunction, he can also contact an architect. He chose not to. The petitioner follows a broad belief that if there is a notice from the competent authority, it can be built first and formalized.”
The court further noted: “We found that this belief is often justified because over time we observed the rise of slums and illegal buildings in Maharashtra, without any action to demolish them. This inaction by the state authorities has given this impossible ambition to the individual ambitions like the petitioner.”
