26 June 2024 Estate Planning >> Property & Real Estate   |   Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently delivered a verdict in the case of Sandeep Vilas Ranade & Others v/s Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), addressing the contentious issue of illegal constructions within green belt zones along the Mutha river in Pune. The case involved several petitioners who had erected various structures, including marriage halls and commercial venues, without obtaining requisite permissions from the PMC, as mandated by the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act").

Facts:

The Petitioners argued their case primarily on the basis of seeking regularization under Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act. They contended that the ambiguity surrounding permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) guidelines in green belt zones and river protection belts contributed to their decision to proceed with construction. Despite this claim, the PMC issued demolition notices, asserting that granting regularization would establish a dangerous precedent and undermine crucial environmental and planning regulations.

Crucially, the Petitioners neither applied for regularization nor made efforts to rectify their non-compliance with building regulations before the PMC executed the demolition notices. The court took note of their failure to demonstrate genuine difficulties in understanding the FSI guidelines, highlighting their repeated illegal constructions even amidst ongoing legal proceedings.

Court's Decision and Rationale:

In its detailed judgment, the Bombay High Court dismissed all petitions filed by the Petitioners. The court unequivocally rejected the plea for regularization (as per prayer clauses (D) and (E) of Writ Petition No. 5816 of 2023), emphasizing that such leniency would condone illegal activities and undermine the sanctity of environmental protection laws. The ruling drew upon various precedents and Supreme Court judgments to underscore that regularization cannot be extended to individuals who blatantly violate building regulations. It underscored the adverse impact such actions have on law-abiding citizens who adhere to the prescribed legal processes for urban development.

Conclusion:

The judgment of the Bombay High Court in the Sandeep Vilas Ranade case carries significant implications for future disputes involving illegal constructions and the scope of regularization under municipal laws. By upholding the demolition orders, the court sends a clear message about the consequences of flouting legal requirements. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting environmental interests amidst rapid urban expansion. This landmark decision underscores the importance of transparent and lawful urban development practices that align with statutory frameworks and environmental norms. It highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding public interest and promoting sustainable urban development.

  MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966