Bombay HC orders civic body to demolish illegal community hall in Ghatkopar, ET RealEstate
MUMBAI: Illegal constructions completely jeopardize the planned development of the city and drain existing resources, the Bombay High Court has said while ordering the civic body to demolish within one week a one week a community hall constructed unauthorizedly on a plot reserved for a playground in Ghatkopar.
A bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Kamal Khata, in its judgment of April 17, said law-abiding citizens who have authorised structures are faced with several difficulties and shortages since resources are being shared by these illegal constructions. The bench held the concerned officers of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) responsible for dereliction of duty and ordered the civic chief to take appropriate action against them and submit a report within six months.
The bench directed the BMC to demolish the illegal construction carried out by the trust within one week and to retain the plot as an open space as per reservation and to not permit any construction there in future. The order was passed on a petition challenging permissions granted by the BMC and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to one Akhil Bhatwadi Sarvajanik Utsav Mandal to carry out construction of a community hall on land admeasuring 585 square meters in Ghatkopar.
As per the petitioners, the land also has a Ganesh temple and the remaining area was reserved as open plot that was used for sports, religious programmes, political meetings, social activities and recreational activities. However, the trust in 1994 constructed a community hall occupying 90 square metres of the land illegally, which was demolished by the trust in 2023. However, construction for a new community hall commenced with a hoarding that a Member of Parliament had granted financial aid, the plea said.
The petitioners claimed they had lodged several complaints with the BMC but no action was taken. Only in February this year, the BMC ordered the trust to remove the illegal construction and hand over the open plot, the petitioners said. This is yet another case which highlights the BMC’s “deliberate and wilful” inaction permitting illegal constructions, the HC said. The corporation simply stops after issuing notices and takes no preventive action to stop illegal construction, the HC said.
“This inaction encourages and promotes illegal constructions. In this case it also involves MHADA,” the court added. The HC said the trust that owns the illegal structure abused law by filing a suit in a civil court and obtained an injunction against demolition of the structure. “This is the usual modus operandi by those who put up illegal constructions,” HC said. The court further noted that the trust and authorities such as the MHADA and the BMC were responsible for these illegal constructions.
“We find that this is a gross case of illegal and unauthorised construction. This is a clear case where the purported trustees of the trust have used their influence with the Member of Parliament and the local authorities to construct an illegal structure with public funds,” the HC said. Planning authorities like the MHADA and BMC cannot permit illegal constructions, the HC said. The court said it cannot understand how the BMC, which has been forewarned that there is illegal construction being carried out on a land reserved for a playground, cannot take action.
“According to us, the BMC ought to have sprung into action immediately upon receiving the complaint and not waited for several months to take action. We find the inaction clearly as dereliction of duty on part of the BMC officers,” the court said adding it expects the municipal commissioner to take action against all concerned officers for abuse of position and misrepresentation of facts before court.
“The BMC is duty bound to protect public lands, to protect the rights of citizens under the statute and the implementation of the statutes in its true letter and spirit,” the bench said. The court further emphasised the need for BMC officers to be vigilant and take due cognizance of complaints received from public and thereby “stem the growth of illegal constructions which are plaguing the city for decades”. It added that the BMC officers failed to inform their advocates to point out the correct facts and suppressed material facts due to which the civil court passed an injunction order.
“This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” the bench said. Advocates are officers of the court first and, hence, it is their bounden duty to place true and correct facts and not mislead it into passing erroneous orders, the HC said. It said the trust’s advocate misrepresented facts before the civil court to obtain an injunction order. The court referred this case to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for action for professional misconduct against the advocate.
