The Bombay High Court has refused to order the demolition of a house in Ulhasnagar, ruling that a building cannot be razed merely because the town planner who approved its construction was later subjected to disciplinary proceedings and penalised.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish Chavan delivered the judgment on Monday while hearing a petition filed by Viresh Mahindrarka, who had sought demolition of a house owned by Rama Nikam.
The Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC) had issued a completion certificate for the property in 2009. Mahindrarka challenged the regularisation of the structure, alleging that it was contrary to the Regularisation of Unauthorised Developments in the City of Ulhasnagar (RUDCU) Act, 2006.
The bench, however, found no substance in the challenge and noted the purpose behind the legislation, which was introduced to address widespread unauthorised construction in Ulhasnagar while reducing the hardship that mass demolitions could cause residents.
Action Against Town Planner Not Enough for Demolition
Mahindrarka had also relied on disciplinary proceedings against former town planner A.P. Gurgule, who was accused of granting development permissions for 12 allegedly illegal structures.
The High Court noted that in a separate public interest litigation in 2011, authorities had been directed to investigate Gurgule’s conduct. Although disciplinary action and a penalty followed, the court pointed out that the earlier order had not directed the demolition of the structures involved.
The judges said the house could not be removed “merely because the person who granted permission has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and some penalty has been imposed upon him, unless and until the corporation declares the structure to be particularly illegal”.
The bench also rejected the argument that Nikam’s house should not have been regularised because it fell along the alignment of a proposed Development Plan (DP) road.
The court observed that the road existed only as a proposed alignment and that the house did not obstruct any existing road. Therefore, “there was no question of it not being regularised”.
The judges further observed, “In any case, we find that down the line, in the year 2026, when much water has flown with the development plan also being revised and definitely, this regularised structure must have been taken into consideration and some other DP road must have been chalked out in the revised development plan.”
The High Court ultimately declined to direct civic action merely on the basis of the allegations made in the petition, stating, “We do not expect any action at the instance of the corporation against the structure” only on that ground.
The ruling underscores that disciplinary action against an approving official does not automatically invalidate a development permission or make the resulting structure liable for demolition without an independent finding of illegality.
Source: Hindustan Times
