Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 17105 OF 2025
1. Aryan World School ]
A Charitable Educational Institution ]
Registered under the Maharashtra Public ]
Trusts Act, 1950, Through the Manager ]
Shri Milind Ladge, ]
Office Address: At Survey No.12/5/1, ]
Bhilarewadi, Taluka Haveli, ]
Pune – 411 043. ] ...Petitioner.
Authority [PMRDA] ]
Through its Commissioner, Having address at: ]
Having Address at 3rd floor, PCNTDA, ]
New Administrative Building, Near Akurdi ]
Railway Station, Pune 411 044. ]
Email: comm@pmrda.gov.in ]
2. Devidas Bhimrao Mundfane ]
Address : 9992/993/13, Laxmi Park, ]
Rajendra Nagar, Lalbahadur Shashtri Road, ]
Navi Peth, Pune – 411030 ]
3. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Copy to be served to the Government Pleader) ] … Respondents
Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Vijaykumar Dhakane for
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent No.3-State.
JUDGMENT
1) Not on board. Taken on board.
2) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek setting aside of the Order dated 17th April 2025 passed by the Tahasildar and Designated officer Pune, Metropolitan Region Development Authority (‘PMRDA’)- Respondent No.1.
3) The Petitioners claim to be a renowned non-profit educational institution located in Pune, Metropolitan Region. This educational institution serves around 2000 students from Standard 1 to Standard 10.
4) Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that, they are a reputed school and they have been issued this Order for demolition without giving a hearing and without considering all the documents.
5) After hearing her, we inquired if she had sanctioned plans of the constructed building from any local authority. In response she contended that the structure was constructed based on the No Objection Certificate issued by the Grampanchayat, dated 1st October 2007. According to her, the Grampanchayat was the relevant authority, before the establishment of the PMRDA in 2016 and based on their permission the Petitioners were entitled to construct.
6) Ms. Karnik submitted that, immediately after having received the Notice from the Respondent No.1, they have made an application for regularization of the structure. She contends that, the Petitioners’ application dated 17th January, 2025 was rejected by the PMRDA on 23rd January, 2025. Moreover, as per the Order dated 17th April 2025, the Petitioners have been called upon to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days. It is under these circumstances that the present Petition has been filed.
7) Mr. Vijay Patil, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1, submits that, the structure constructed is illegal. He submits that, the Petitioner has not produced any document to show that they had received any permission for such a construction. He submits that the Petition be dismissed.
8) We have heard both counsels and perused the record.
9) This is yet another case where illegal construction has been erected based on the ‘No Objection Certificate’ granted by the Gram Panchayat for which an application for regularizing the same was made and is rejected.
10) In numerous cases the Courts have held that the Gram Panchayat has no authority to grant permission for construction. Recent decisions are listed herein bellow for ready reference:-
(i) Manoj Ramanand Prajapati V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(ii) Sunil Vishwanath Madavi & Anr. V/s. The Chief Secretary, State of
(iii) Indradas Kacharu Gaikar V/s. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal
11) We find that this common belief that one can construct and then subsequently ask for regularization of the structure has caused this situation in the State of Maharashtra. Consistently, Courts have held that ‘illegality is incurable’ as per the ratio laid down in the case of K Ramadas Shenoy v The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Others reported in
12) 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 held that Section 53(3) of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) does not contemplate ex post facto permission for an illegality. It contemplates the continuance, retention or regularization of that which had some semblance of a permission but not where there is an anomaly and irregularity. The Court also clarified that Section 53 does not contemplate the curing of an illegality, if it did, it would be liable to struck down inter alia on the ground of manifest arbitrariness.
13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. V/s. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after having considered a catena of decisions held that, illegal and unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. It clarified that, if a construction is made in contravention of the Act/Rules it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction and has to be necessarily demolished.
13.1) The Supreme Court further observed that, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with the cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions from the competent Authority. The relevant paragraph emphasizing this aspect is reproduced hereinbelow for a ready reference. “20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions. That apart, the State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on the environment. Hence, regularization schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances and as a onetime measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger public interest. Unauthorised constructions, apart from posing a threat to the life of the occupants and the citizens living nearby, also have an effect on resources like electricity, ground water and access to roads, which are primarily designed to be made available in orderly development and authorized activities. Master plan or the zonal development cannot be just individual centric but also must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and the environment. Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons entrusted with the implementation of the act are held accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a nelson's eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.”
13.2) Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Kaniz vs. Sabuddin & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 610 in paragraph No.7 has held as under:- “7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) NO. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]” 14) Having considered the settled law and the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the structure constructed by the Petitioners are wholly illegal. No permissions at all have been obtained from the competent Authority to construct it. As observed hereinabove the Grampanchayat’s permission/NOC has no relevance. Permission ought to have been obtained from the Collector in the absence of any Authority.
15) We are unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that merely because they are an educational institution servicing around 2000 students, the Court must consider and relegate them to the Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (‘PMRDA’) to regularize their illegal structure. It has become a recurring trend for individuals who have engaged in blatantly illegal or unauthorized constructions to invoke pleas of illiteracy when such constructions serve their own interests or alternatively, to create third-party rights in an attempt to elicit sympathy or secure concessions for regularization as a matter of right. Such misplaced sympathy not only undermines the sanctity of the law but also jeopardizes the very foundation of town planning. Illegality is inherently incurable, and the law is equal and uniformly applicable to all, without exception.
16) The State must necessarily take action against the Grampanchayat and the Sarpanch in accordance with law for issuing such ‘No Objection Certificates’ or permissions and permitting illegal constructions.
17) We direct the State to file a compliance affidavit stating actions taken by the State against the concerned persons in Grampanchayat who granted the NOC and the Sarpanch who permitted illegal construction within six months of this order and in any event by 14th November 2025.
18) Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)