03 April 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

In the matter of Neetu Makhija & Others v/s Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, Through, Municipal Commissioner, Thane & Others., the Bombay High Court has issued a stern directive to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC) to demolish an unauthorized construction, lambasting the civic body and police authorities for their prolonged inaction and apparent protection of illegal activities. The court's judgment underscores the judiciary's firm stance against illegal construction and the necessity for authorities to uphold the rule of law.

The case arose from a petition filed by a resident of Ulhasnagar, who complained about an illegal construction being carried out by Respondent No. 2 near her property. The petitioner alleged that the construction, lacking necessary permissions, was causing water leakage and mental distress, and that despite multiple complaints to the UMC and police, no action was taken.

Court's Findings and Observations:

The High Court, in its ruling, made several critical observations:

• Clear Violation of Law: The court noted that the construction was clearly unauthorized, as confirmed by the UMC's own records.
• Authorities' Inaction and Delay: The court strongly criticized the UMC and police for their inordinate delay in taking action, despite being aware of the illegality. The UMC's delay in seeking police protection and the police's initial refusal to provide it were particularly highlighted.
• Attempt to Mislead the Court: The court found that the intervenor applicants (purported owners of the demolished barracks) had deliberately misrepresented court orders in their civil suit, attempting to mislead the civil court.
• Lack of Communication and Coordination: The court pointed out a serious lack of communication between different departments of the UMC, leading to further delays and hindering effective action.
• Perpetuation of Illegalities: The court expressed concern that the authorities' inaction was perpetuating illegal constructions, fueling public perception of official protection for such activities.
• Need for Deterrence: The court emphasized the need for severe deterrence against illegal constructions and called upon the state government to consider legislative measures to hold all parties involved accountable.
• The notion that construction can begin and then be regularized is not allowed.

Court's Directives:

In light of these findings, the High Court issued the following directives:

• The UMC was ordered to immediately demolish the illegal construction.
• The court strongly condemned the conduct of the intervenor applicants and Respondent No. 2.
• The court called for improved communication and coordination between UMC departments and with the police.
• The court urged the state government to consider legislative measures to deter illegal constructions.

Implications of the Ruling:

This judgment sends a strong message that the judiciary will not tolerate illegal constructions and that authorities must act decisively to uphold the law. It highlights the importance of timely and coordinated action by civic bodies and police in curbing such activities.

The court's call for legislative measures reflects a growing concern about the prevalence of illegal constructions and the need for stronger deterrents.