Bombay High Court
Hanuman Jairam Naik vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr And Ors on 25 February, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:8860-DB
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
apn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2025
Hanuman Jairam Naik ]
Age: 54 Years, Occupation: Service ]
Residing At: House No.340, ]
Darave Village, Unit No.1, ]
Ward - Belapur, Navi Mumbai, ]
Taluka and District Thane. ] ...Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
2. The Controller of Unauthorised ]
Construction (U) CIDCO Ltd ]
Having office at: Raigad Bhavan, ]
Second Floor, CBD Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai 400 614. ]
3. Venu Nayar ]
(Officer of Respondent No.2) ]
Age: About 50 Years, ]
Occupation: Service, ]
Having Office At: Raigad Bhavan, ]
Second Floor, CBD Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai, 400 614. ]
4. The Assistant Commissioner of ]
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. ]
Having Office At: A Ward, ]
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation ]
(Belapur Node), Navi Mumbai. ] ...Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Tapan Thatte for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shahaji Shinde, 'B' Panel, a/w Ms. Snehal Jadhav, AGP for the
Respondent-State.
Digitally
signed by _____________________________________________
ASHWINI
ASHWINI
H GAJAKOSH
GAJAKOSH Date:
2025.02.25
15:08:05
+0530
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2025 22:15:15 :::
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
CORAM :A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 6th February, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th February, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J) :
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"A. Declare the demolition dated 18th December 2024
of the property in issue, namely 'House No.340, multi
storied, situate on Plot No.16/7 and 16/8 being Survey
Nos. 66 of Sector 23 Darave Navi Mumbai admeasuring
about 418 square meters', by the Respondent No. 2 as
being illegal and affront to the fundamental rights of
the Petitioner.
B. Direct Respondent No.3 to pay the Petitioner a
compensation of Rs 50000000/- (Rupees Five Crores
Only) compensate the Petitioner for the loss caused by
the illegal demolition dated 18th December 2024 and
the mental agony suffered by the Petitioner.
C. Direct the Respondent No.2 to restore the
possession of the property in issue, namely, 'House
No.340, multi storied, situate on Plot No. 16/7 and
16/8 being Survey Nos. 66 of Sector 23 Darave Navi
Mumbai admeasuring about 418 square meters' and the
lands underlying thereof to the Petitioner."
BRIEF FACTS:
2) The Petitioner claims that he resided on plot No.16/7
and 16/8 bearing Survey Nos.66 of Sector 23 Darave, Navi Mumbai,
that measured about 418 square meters since 1975 i.e. more than 50
years. Due to the dilapidated condition of his house, he demolished
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
the same in 2022 and has reconstructed a multi-storied building as
per his requirement.
3) The Petitioner admits not seeking any permission for
either the demolition or the reconstruction of the said premises from
the relevant competent authorities under the law, claiming illiteracy.
4) On 18th July 2022, the Petitioner received a notice under
Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 ("MRTP") from the Respondent No.4 to which he did not
respond. But instead, on 30th January, 2023 he instituted a Civil Suit
bearing No. RCS 58/2023 before the Civil Court at Belapur, against
the officer of Respondent No.2-The Controller of Unauthorised
Construction (U) CIDCO Ltd and his superior - Respondent No.4-
Assistant Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation
("NMMC") seeking to quash the Notice dated 18 th July, 2022. Later,
on 15th February 2023 the Civil Court at Belapur directed the parties
to maintain status quo as regards property in issue.
5) Pending the disposal of the Suit, on 3 rd March 2023 the
Petitioner received another notice regarding the property from
Respondent No.2. The Petitioner contends that, despite the status
quo Order the Respondent No.2 proceeded to demolish the house of
the Petitioner on 27th December 2023 under the pretense of
implementing the directions of the High Court in PIL No.138 of
2012. Since the entire house was not demolished and substantial
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
portion remained, the Petitioner amended his suit to impugn the
notice dated 3rd March 2023. On 4th July 2024 the Suit was
unconditionally withdrawn.
6) On 18th May 2024 the Petitioner instituted another Civil
Suit bearing No. RCS 152 / 2024 before Civil Court at Belapur,
against Respondent Nos.2 and 4 seeking a declaration of title to the
land and of his residential premise. On 18 th May 2024 itself an ad-
interim order was passed by the Civil Court directing to maintain
status quo regarding the property in issue. On 21 st November 2024,
the Respondent No.2 moved an application and sought time to file a
written statement.
7) On 10th December 2024, the status quo order was
extended upto 9th January 2025. The Petitioner's contention is that
despite the aforesaid order on 18th December 2024 the Respondent
No.2 demolished the entire property.
8) Mr. Thatte representing the Petitioner argues that, the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 officers have disobeyed the Civil Court's
order and proceeded to demolish the Petitioner's residential
structure. It is in these circumstances that the prayers in the Petition
including directing the Respondent No.2 to restore the possession
and the structure are sought.
8.1) He argues that unless personal accountability is foisted
onto the officers responsible for the illegal demolition, it would be an
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
affront to the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. He asserts that
relegating the Petitioner to Civil Court would not be an efficacious
remedy.
8.2) The learned counsel asserts that the demolition was ex
facie illegal and thus the Respondent No.3 was personally liable for
the loss caused to the Petitioner. In support of his contentions, he
refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291. Particularly to paragraphs 90 and 91 of
the Judgment in support of his contentions.
9) We have heard the arguments of Mr. Thatte and perused
the entire record.
10) In our view, a citizen who seeks a right under the
Constitution is obliged to perform his duties as a citizen. In the garb
of being an illiterate the Petitioner has sought to blatantly violate the
law. The Petitioner in the garb of being an illiterate seeks support of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Writ Petition No.295 of 2022
in Re : Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291.
11) In our view the Apex Court neither intended to nor
permitted a citizen to construct illegally. They did not depart from
the dictum "illegality is incurable" held in the case of Sri K. Ramadas
Shenoy V/s. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi And
Others reported in (1974) 2 SCC 506.
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
12) Apart from bald statements made in the Petition, the
Petitioner has failed to annex any supporting documents to prove his
ownership. If the Petitioner could file Civil Suits for injunction, he
could well approach An architect. He chose not to. The Petitioner
followed a widespread belief that, one can first construct and then
regularize it, if any notice is issued by any competent authority.
13) We find that this belief is often true as we have seen the
rise in slums and illegal constructions in the State of Maharashtra
over a period of time and no action has been taken to raze them. It is
this inaction by the state authorities that fuels the desires of the
persons like Petitioners.
14) In the case of High Court on its Own Motion V/s. The
State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 918, this
Court has dealt with a similar argument and emphatically rejected it.
In a recent judgment in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and
Another V/s. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3767, the Supreme Court has reiterated the view and
the settled law that illegality cannot be cured.
15) In view of the settled law and the admitted fact that the
Petitioner neither has proved the ownership of the land nor has
proved the existence of the structure being 50 years old cannot claim
any equities and expect the Court to believe his statements. A
Petitioner cannot simply seek defense on the ground of illiteracy to
21-aswp-362-2025-Jf.doc
perform illegal acts. If these Petitions are entertained there would be
utter lawlessness. We are bound by the law enumerated by the Apex
Court and we concur with the observations of the co-ordinate bench
and dismiss the Petition.
16) We find that despite settled law, such Petitions are filed
only with a view to take a chance and obtain interim reliefs by
misguiding the Courts in some manner or form. To deter this class of
Petitioners, we were inclined to impose exemplary costs of Rs.5 lakhs
on the Petitioner and dismiss the Petition. However, at the sincere
request of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, we refrain
ourselves from doing it.
(KAMAL KHATA, J) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
