Sunil Vishwanath Madavi & Ors. v. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra & Ors.

5. It is pertinent to note that on the last occasion when the matter was heard, the Respondent No.8 had informed the Court that the profit made by Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 was approximately Rs.[2] Crores. Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 have also informed the Court that they are also getting the other lands purportedly owned by them, developed, by constructing flats thereon. They undertake to provide detailed particulars of the lands purportedly owned by them and the amounts received from sale of the said lands till date and the balance yet to be received as on date.

6. It is also disclosed by Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 that they and their family members have used a part of the profit earned by them from the subject project, by purchasing other properties, a list of which they will disclose on Affidavit.

7. From the aforestated facts, it appears that the modus operandi of Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 is to take a blanket letter/permission from the Grampanchayat, stating that they can construct buildings, and on the strength of such illegal / invalid permission/s, construct buildings which are completely unauthorized and sell the same to innocent flat purchasers, thereby cheating / perpetrating a fraud on them.

8. It also prima facie appears that such constructions cannot come up unless some officials of the statutory authorities are hand in glove with such ruthless alleged land owners/developers. If the Court passes a mere order to demolish the unauthorized constructions, the same will not in any manner affect Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 who have earned their ill-gotten gains by defrauding the innocent members of the public i.e. the flat purchasers, who will be the real sufferers and who will be virtually brought on the streets, without any refund of the consideration paid by them to the alleged land Owners / Developers who have perpetrated a fraud on them.

9. In the circumstances, the Respondent Nos.[8] to 10 cannot be allowed to go scot free and if they are so allowed, they shall with impunity continue with their fraudulent activities, thereby similarly defrauding hundreds of other innocent members of the public / flat purchasers. In view thereof, before we pass final orders in the matter, we deem it fit to direct Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 as well as Respondent No.10 to disclose on oath the following:

(i) Respondent No.10 shall disclose on Affidavit:

(a) the particulars of the flats/shops that they have sold in the subject project, as well as the other projects undertaken by them in the last five years; the amounts collected by them so far i.e. from the sales effected in the subject project, as also from the sales effected by them from projects undertaken by them in the last five years and similarly the balances yet to be received; (b)the names of the flat purchasers and the agreements /documents executed by and between the Developer and such flat purchasers shall also be annexed to the Affidavit;

(c) the profit made, both from sales effected in the subject project and from the sales effected by them from projects undertaken by them in the last five years, shall be separately disclosed;

(d) Respondent No.10 and his immediate family members shall also disclose all their assets, including the particulars of their bank accounts and the balances lying therein, along with the statement of such bank accounts of the last five years and the income tax returns filed by them for the last five years; (e) until the adjourned date Respondent No.10 shall not sell any flats/shops and/or any other immovable properties/assets to any person/s/entities. (f) Respondent No.10 shall not withdraw any amounts in excess of Rs.10,000/- from any of their bank accounts on or before 5th April, 2021, when the matter shall be heard further.

(ii) The purported Land Owners/Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 shall disclose on Affidavit: (a) the particulars of the flats/shops that they have sold in the subject project, as well as the other projects undertaken by them in the last five years; the amounts collected by them so far, i.e. from the sales effected in the subject project, as also from the sales effected by them from projects undertaken by them in the last five years and similarly the balances yet to be received; (b) the names of the flat purchasers and the agreements / documents executed by and between the Developer and such flat purchasers shall also be annexed to the Affidavit;

(c) the profit made, both from sales effected in the subject project and from the sales effected by them from projects undertaken by them in the last five years, shall be separately disclosed;

(d) Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 and their immediate family members shall also disclose all their assets, including the particulars of their bank accounts and the balances lying therein along with the statement of such bank accounts of the last five years and the income tax returns filed by them of the last five years; (e) until the adjourned date Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 shall not sell any flats/shops and/or any other immovable properties/assets to any person/s/entities. (f) Respondent Nos.[8] and 9 shall not withdraw any amounts in excess of Rs.10,000/- from any of their bank accounts on or before 5th April, 2021, when the matter shall be heard further. Stand over to 5th April, 2021, High on Board.”

9. Respondents 8, 9, and 10 have filed affidavits in pursuance of the directions in the order dated 30 March 2021. However, the petitioners have alleged that the affidavits do not follow the directions issued in the order. Accordingly, the petitioners have instituted Contempt Petition No. 129 of 2021, alleging willful disobedience.

10. The notices have already been issued in Contempt Petition No. 129 of 2021. On 06 July 2021, the co-ordinate bench comprising S.J. Kathawalla & Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. made the following order:- “. Mr. Mukesh Vashi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.3 – Contemnor in Contempt Petition No. 129 of 2021 seeks time on the ground that he is not satisfied with the affidavit filed on behalf of his client and an exhaustive affidavit needs to be filed in compliance with the order passed by this Court dated 30.03.2021.

2. We are giving a last chance to Respondent No. 3 contemnor to comply with our order dated 30.03.2021 in its entirety on or before 15.07.2021. Affidavit filed shall be forthwith forwarded to the Court Associate and the Advocate for the Plaintiff.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 makes a similar application to file additional affidavit-in-reply of his clients before 15.07.2021 in compliance with the order dated 30.03.2021. Affidavit filed shall be forwarded to the Court Associate and the Advocate for the Plaintiff.

4. Stand over to 20th July, 2021.”

11. The Contempt Petition was permitted to be amended on 04 August 2021, and respondents to the Contempt Petition were also granted liberty to file further affidavits. Such affidavits have been filed. Although even Contempt Petition No. 129 of 2021 was directed to be placed for final disposal on 23 June 2023, we decided to first hear and dispose of Writ Petition No. 833 of 2019 and defer the hearing in Contempt Petition No. 129 of 2021 to 22 August

2024. PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS:-

12. Mr Amit Gharte, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondents 8, 9 and 10 have unauthorisedly constructed five buildings of 4 stories each in the property surveyed under No. 12, Village- Kalher, Taluka- Bhiwandi, District- Thane. He submitted that the buildings were constructed without obtaining permission from the planning authority, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (“MMRDA”), and based on some fraudulent permission from the Village Panchayat of Kasheli, which was not even authorised to issue such permission. He submitted that a major part of the construction has been undertaken on the government land. Accordingly, he submitted that the construction of five buildings is completely unauthorised and warrants demolition.

13. Mr Gharte submitted that even the permissions obtained from the Panchayat are fraudulent. By stating that the 8th respondent was reconstructing house No. 9(A)(2) having an area of hardly 200 sq.ft., the 8th and 9th respondents obtained some permissions from Kasheli panchayat. Based on these permissions, however, almost five buildings were constructed at another village, Kalher, having a total built-up area of about 40,000 sq. ft. This was done without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, i.e. MMRDA. Possibly, to facilitate such additional unauthorised construction, respondents 8 to 10 brazenly encroached upon the Government’s property.

14. Mr Gharte submitted that the Tahsildar, after following the due course of law, issued five separate demolition orders dated 23 December 2013 regarding five unauthorisedly constructed buildings. However, despite issuing such demolition orders, the Tahsildar and MMRDA have been passing on the buck to each other and not demolishing the unauthorised buildings. Hence, the petitioners were left with no alternative but to petition this Court to implement the demolition orders dated 23 December 2013, which have neither been set aside nor stayed by any other competent authority or Court.

15. Mr Gharte stated that respondents 8, 9 and 10 must be directed to compensate the flat purchasers for the fraud which they have committed upon them. He submitted that this Court, by its order dated 30 March 2021, had directed respondents 8, 9 and 10 to file detailed affidavits disclosing several details like profits made by them, the property held by them, etc. However, respondents 8, 9 and 10 have filed vague affidavits and refused to disclose full details. He, therefore, submitted that apart from action under the Contempt of Courts Act, stringent orders must be made against these respondents who have breached all laws and defrauded several parties. AGP’S CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:-

16. Ms Shinde learned AGP for the State submitted that the orders dated 23 December 2013 stand and have not been challenged by any parties. She, therefore, submitted that such orders are required to be enforced and would be enforced by the authorities. She submitted that after the notification dated 17 March 2007 issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”), the Panchayat had no power to grant permission for such constructions and permission from MMRDA was a must.

17. Ms Shinde submitted that since such permissions were not obtained, five buildings constructed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 are wholly unauthorised and deserve demolishing. She submitted that five unauthorised buildings had been constructed upon the Government property as observed by the Tahsildar in the orders dated 23 December 2013. She submitted that this is an additional reason for the demolition of the five buildings unauthorisedly constructed by respondents 8, 9 and 10.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9:-

18. Mr Shah learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 insisted upon a grant of adjournment and refused to make any submissions. However, the affidavits of respondents 8 and 9 are on record, and their defence (if any) is similar to the defence of the 10th respondent. In fact, their reply alleges that they entrusted the construction of the buildings to their developer/builder, i.e., respondent No. 10, so respondent No. 10 would be in a better position to respond to the building permissions, etc. 10th RESPONDENT’S (DEVELOPER/ BUILDER) CONTENTIONS:-

19. Mr Bhosle learned counsel for the 10th respondent made extensive submissions to defend the five buildings. Firstly, Mr Bhosle submitted that the permissions of the village Panchayat were obtained in 2010. By that date, Maharashtra Act No. 43 of 2014 had entered force on 29 December 2014 and amended Section 52 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (“Panchayat Act”) was not in force. Accordingly, he submitted that the Village Panchayat permissions obtained in 2010 were perfectly legal and valid. He submitted that based on 2010 permission from the Village Panchayat, respondents 8, 9 and 10 were entitled to construct those five buildings. Therefore, he submitted that this petition, which proceeds on the premise that the construction of five buildings was unauthorised, does not stand. Accordingly, he urged the dismissal of this petition.

20. Secondly, Mr Bhosle contended that there were civil disputes between the petitioners and respondents 8 and 9, and this petition was a result of a vendetta between the two. He submitted that civil suits had been instituted by the petitioners against respondents 8 and 9, seeking substantially the same relief as is sought in this petition. However, after the petitioners failed to obtain the relief, the present petition was instituted. Mr Bhosle submitted that there was nothing bonafide in the institution or prosecution of this petition. He, therefore, submitted that this petition should be dismissed.

21. Thirdly, Mr Bhosle submitted that the issue of partial encroachment on the Government land involves an investigation into disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this Court should not undertake such an exercise in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that respondents 8, 9 and 10 had not encroached upon any government land, and permissions from the Village Panchayat backed the constructions.

22. Fourthly, Mr Bhosle submitted that the 10th respondent relied upon the permissions obtained by the 8th and 9th respondents, who owned the properties in question. He submitted that these respondents had filed an affidavit stating that the Panchayat never told them about the permission requirement from MMRDA or any other authority. He submitted that the 10th respondent had acted bonafide and even allotted several apartments to respondents 8 and 9. He submitted that since this was the 10th respondent’s first project, he relied on the various representations held out by the 8th and 9th respondents.

23. For all the above reasons, Mr Bhosle submitted that the constructions should not be ordered demolished and that this petition should be dismissed. PETITIONERS’ REJOINDER:-

24. Mr Gharte, by way of rejoinder, submitted that some of the suits were withdrawn given the provisions of Section 149 of the MRTP Act, which accord statutory finality to every order passed or notice issued by the planning and development authorities. Mr Gharte denied that the reliefs in the withdrawn suits and reliefs in the present petition were identical. He submitted that some of the suits were for protecting the petitioners’ civil rights, and this petition was to require the statutory authorities to act against the patently unauthorised constructions carried out by respondents 8, 9 and 10. Mr Gharte denied that this petition was instituted to seek any personal vendetta. He submitted that the gross facts and circumstances of the present case raised public issues which are best raised in public law proceedings. He submitted that respondents 8 and 9 clearly admitted to illegality in the construction of five buildings, as was recorded by this Court in its order dated 25 March

2021.

25. Mr Gharte strongly relied on the State’s notification under Section 40(1) of the MRTP Act issued on 17 March 2007. He submitted that this notification clarifies that if any planning authority or special planning authorities functioning in the notified area before the notification dated 17 March 2007, the same shall cease to function in relation to the notified area from the date of this notification. He pointed out that the villages Kalher and Kasheli were specifically referred to in items 16 and 20 to schedule ‘A’ appended to the notification dated 17 March 2007. Accordingly, he submitted that post 17 March 2007, Village Panchayat had no power or jurisdiction to grant any permissions. He submitted that, in any event, the Panchayat permissions did not relate to the construction of five buildings.

EVALUATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS:-

26. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

27. The records and documents in the present case establish without doubt that respondents 8 and 9, by appointing the 10th respondent as developer/builder, have constructed five buildings of 4 stories each in the property surveyed under No. 12, Village— Kalher, Taluka—Bhiwandi, District—Thane, which is the subject matter of the issue raised in this petition. As discussed hereafter, such constructions are patently illegal; they encroach on government land and are a product of fraud practised by respondents 8, 9 and 10.

28. The petitioners have pleaded and urged that five buildings so constructed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 suffered from the following gross illegalities:- (a) Five buildings have been constructed without any permission from the planning authority, i.e. MMRDA, when such permission was mandatory under the provisions of the MRTP Act and the notification dated 17 March 2007 issued under Section 40(1) of the MRTP Act constituting MMRDA as the special planning authority for the area. (b) The Village Panchayat Kasheli had no power or authority to permit any construction post notification dated 17 March 2007. In any event, the permission granted by this Panchayat in 2010 does not relate to the construction of five buildings but to the construction in place of house no. 9/2 at Kasheli village. The construction in place of the house was nowhere close to the almost 40000 sq. ft. of construction put up in Kalher village; besides, there was no permission from Kalher Village Panchayat.

(c) Moreover, there are no permissions for conversion under the land revenue code, fire safety permissions, or any other statutory permissions for constructing the five buildings by partly encroaching on government land. The five buildings defy practically all building and town planning rules and regulations.

(d) The five buildings are at least partly on the Government’s land. Such blatant usurpation of the government’s land for private gain cannot be tolerated or encouraged. (e) The Tahsildar, by five separate orders dated 29 December 2013, had already directed the demolition of these five buildings. These orders have neither been questioned nor set aside. These orders were made after granting respondents 8 and 9 full opportunity and considering the defences now raised. Therefore, the orders dated 29 December 2013 must be enforced, and five unauthorised buildings must be demolished.

29. The record and the pleadings in this case support all the above grounds. Respondents 8 and 9, by engaging the 10th respondent as the developer, have illegally and brazenly constructed five buildings at Kalher to defraud purchasers and the Government. The permissions issued by the Kasheli Panchayat do not relate to the constructions put up at the site. The Panchayat was not even authorised to issue such permissions post-17th March 2007. MMRDA, the competent planning authority for the area, has not issued a single permission, as none was even applied for. No conversion sanad for non-agricultural user is issued by the Collector under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. There are no fire safety clearances. No occupancy certificate has been obtained from MMRDA after due compliance with all legal procedures and formalities.

30. The demolition orders made on 23 December 2013, though not questioned, set aside, or even stayed by any court or other competent authority, have not been executed to date due to executive inaction coupled with the tendency of the statutory authorities to pass the buck to one another. The wholly unauthorised constructions stand as monuments to systematic fraud, greed, executive reluctance to act, and defiance of practically all building & town planning rules and regulations. To say in the mildest terms, this is indeed an extremely sorry and sordid state of affairs.

NO PERMISSION FROM MMRDA, THE SPECIAL PLANNING AUTHORITY UNDER M.R.T.P. ACT:-

31. In this case, Mr Bhushan B. Halwane filed an affidavit on behalf of the MMRDA on 06 February 2020. In this affidavit, the MMRDA relied upon the notification dated 17 March 2007 and submitted that the MMRDA is the exclusive planning authority for the villages Kasheli and Kalher w.e.f. 17 March 2007, and obtaining prior permissions from the MMRDA was mandatory. The affidavit states that the MMRDA has not issued any permissions for the buildings, which are the subject matter of this petition. The Tahsildar’s five orders dated 23rd December 2013 also hold that MMRDA permission was mandatory, and without such permission, the five buildings were wholly unauthorised and illegal. Affidavits of the authorities apart, the legal position also establishes that permission from the MMRDA was a must in this case, as the MMRDA became the planning authority in March 2007. In contrast, the so-called permissions from panchayat were obtained only in March 2010.

32. Under the provisions of the MRTP Act, no person is entitled to construct any building without obtaining permissions required under the said Act or any breach of any of the conditions subject to which permissions may have been granted under the said Act or after permission for development has been duly revoke or in contravention of any permission has been duly modified. Thus, obtaining permission under the MRTP Act is a mandatory requirement, and there is no question of any person constructing five buildings without obtaining permission as contemplated under the MRTP Act.

33. In the exercise of powers conferred by Section 40(1) of the MRTP Act, the State Government may by the notification in the official gazette for any undeveloped area specified in the notification referred to as “notified area” either constitute authority under subclause (a) or appointing authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), or appointing any development authority declared under subsection (3A) of Section 113 or appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority established under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 to be the special planning authority for developing the notified area.

34. Accordingly, by the notification dated 17 March 2007, the State Government declared, inter alia, villages Kalher and Kasheli, Taluka—Bhiwandi, District—Thane, as notified areas. Almost 49 other villages were also included in the schedule ‘A’ of this notification dated 17 March 2007. In terms of this notification under Section 40(1) of the MRTP Act, the State Government appointed the MMRDA to be the special planning authority for the said notified area. The 3rd recital in the notification dated 17 March 2007 declares that if any planning authority or special planning authority is functioning in the said notified area prior to this notification, then the same “shall cease to function in relation to the notified area from the date of this notification”.

35. Thus, it is very clear that from the date of the notification dated 17 March 2007, any planning authority or special planning authority like Village Panchayat functioning in the notified area of Kalher and Kasheli would have to cease to function in relation to these villages from the date of the notification. Therefore, from 17 March 2007, no person could have undertaken any construction, much less construction of five buildings in the village Kalher based only on some permissions from the Village Panchayat of Kasheli while in fact, on and from 17 March 2007, Village Panchayats of Kasheli and Kalher ceased to function as planning authorities in relation to these villages. This position is extremely clear. At least the 10th respondent, a professional builder/developer, cannot claim any ignorance of this legal position. Even otherwise, ignorance of legal position is hardly an excuse.

36. The 8th respondent filed an affidavit on 31 January 2019. This affidavit is comprised of 10 paragraphs. Paragraphs 1 to 8 refer to the pending suits, and the 9th paragraph states that disputed questions of facts are involved in this petition, and there is a doubt about the petitioners’ title. Regarding the legality or otherwise of the five constructed buildings, the affidavit states that “it is the Respondent no. 10 who will be in a better position to address upon the legality of the construction.”

37. Paragraph No.9 of the 8th respondent’s affidavit, which summarises their defences, is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- “9. I say that, the present Writ Petition involved several disputed question of facts and law and all this they have to be gone into. There is a doubt casted upon the title of the plaintiff. The Petitioners after going through the proceeding of the civil court and after not getting in success have chosen filed the present proceeding. As far as the agreement between Respondent no. 8, 9 and 10 are concerned, it is pertinent to not that, the Defendants are 8 and 9 are the owner of the property and they have given the development right to the Respondent no. 10. The Respondent no. 10 was supposed to develop the property vide development agreement dated 29/01/2008 and thus, the responsibility was casted upon the Respondent no. 10 to take appropriate permissions from the concern authorities i.e. the local bodies and thereafter carry the construction. The petitioner therefore states that, it is the Respondent no. 10 who will be in a better position to address upon the legality of the construction.”

38. Thus, the 8th and 9th respondents have virtually accepted the petitioners’ case regarding the gross illegalities in constructing five buildings at Kalher. Their only defence is that it was the 10th respondent’s responsibility to obtain proper permissions from the concerned authorities and, thereafter, carry out the construction. The 10th respondent’s defence fares no better. He tries to shift the blame on the 8th and 9th respondents by stating that he acted under their instructions.

39. The 10th respondent has filed an affidavit on 03 April 2021. In this affidavit, the 10th respondent states that he acquired the development rights to the property from the 8th and 9th respondents. He stated that the 8th and 9th respondents obtained permission from the Village Panchayat of Kasheli on 25 February

2010. He claims that the Village Panchayat Kasheli did not inform the 8th and 9th respondents that any permission for construction had to be obtained from MMRDA. Therefore, the 10th respondent constructed the five buildings based on the Panchayat’s permission.

40. In paragraph No. 10, the 10th respondent pleaded that this was the first time he was executing such a project and claimed that he was unaware that the MMRDA was the proper authority for sanctioning plans. He further claimed that the Panchayat should have informed the 8th and 9th respondents about this requirement, and the 10th respondent merely acted upon the permissions granted to the 8th and 9th respondents by the Panchayat. In paragraph No.15, the 10th respondent claims that all his actions were at the instance and representation of respondents 8 and 9.

41. In paragraph No. 24, the 10th respondent claimed that he was unaware of the notification dated 17 March 2007 or that the jurisdiction of MMRDA had been extended to Bhiwandi and surrounding notified areas of Thane district. He claimed that he bona fide believed that the permissions obtained by the 8th and 9th respondents were valid, and in good faith, he proceeded with the construction. He claimed that he was not responsible for the permissions obtained by the 8th and 9th respondents from the Panchayat. In paragraph No.34, the 10th respondent stated that he made the constructions at the instance and representation of the respondents 8 and 9.

42. Thus, in the pleadings, respondents 8, 9, and 10 did not explain constructing the five buildings without obtaining permission from the MMRDA, which was admittedly the Special Planning Authority for the area. The defence about being unaware of this position or that the Panchayat should have informed them of it is no defence. The attempts to shift blame and responsibility inter se is also no valid defence to the gross illegalities. The 10th respondent is a professional builder and developer and cannot now wriggle out from this sordid situation.

43. The record, pleadings and legal position establish without any doubt that MMRDA permission was vital, and without such permission, the construction of the five buildings was wholly unauthorised and illegal.

MMRDA permission was not applied because the respondents were aware of the unsurmountable hurdles in their way. The panchayat, which was not even concerned with such constructions, was approached, and fraudulent permission was obtained, wholly bypassing the mandatory requirements of the MRTP Act. This, without anything further, is sufficient to slam the constructions as wholly illegal and unauthorised.

STATUS OF KASHELI PANCHAYAT PERMISSION DATED 26 FEBRUARY 2010:-

44. There are two fundamental objections to the permission dated 26 February 2010, allegedly issued by the Kasheli panchayat. First, the constructions are not within the Kasheli Panchayat's jurisdiction but within the Kalher Panchayat's jurisdiction. Second, the Kasheli Panchayat, after 17 March 2007, had ceased to be the planning authority competent to issue any permissions under the MRTP Act. Both these fundamental objections are well-established. Based upon these fundamental objections, and even without going into the apparent fraud involved in obtaining such permission, the constructions are liable to be declared as wholly unauthorised and illegal.

45. The 8th respondent, by his application dated 22 February 2010, applied to the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Kasheli permission to construct on the property near survey No.13. This application on page No.33 of the paper book is completely vague. To this application, the 8th respondent annexed Panchayat’s assessment list, which refers to house No. 9(2), measuring 200 sq. ft. (Page No.34 of the paper book).

46. The Panchayat of Kasheli, in response to the 8th respondent’s application dated 22 February 2010, issued permission dated 26 February 2010 with several conditions. One of the conditions is that permission from the Revenue Department must be obtained before any construction is commenced. The reference to house no. 9 in Kasheli was a poor and fraudulent attempt to bypass the N.A. permissions and procedures under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Again, even this permission dated 26 February 2010 is completely vague, and it is difficult to accept that it has any nexus with the five unauthorised buildings constructed by respondents 8, 9, and 10 within the limits of Gram Panchayat of Kalher and not Kasheli.

47. The petitioners have placed on record documents signed inter alia by respondents 8 and 9 admitting that they, along with others, have an ancestral house bearing No.9 within the limits of Kasheli Village Panchayat. This house measures 800 sq.ft., and each of the co-owners has the right to 200 sq. ft. Thus, there is substance in the petitioners’ contention that respondents 8 to 10 obtained extremely vague permissions from the Village Panchayat Kasheli by referring to house No.9 within the limits of the Village Panchayat Kasheli. However, five unauthorised constructions were put up in the Village Kalher, measuring 39,942 sq. ft. (Thirty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Two sq.ft.) even though ancestral house No.9 admeasured hardly 800 sq. ft. This is another reason to hold the construction of the five buildings as wholly unauthorised and tainted with fraud.

48. The perusal of the application dated 22 February 2010 and its accompaniments does suggest that the same was restricted to a small structure and does not clearly speak about the construction of five buildings of four stories each. Even the permission issued on 26 February 2010 is extremely unclear and does not suggest that the same was for constructing five buildings with four stories each. There is a substance in the criticism levelled by the petitioners that the reference to house no. 9/2 or 9 in Kasheli measured 800 sq. ft (out of which the respondents had a share of only 200 or 400 sq. ft.); there was no question of constructing five buildings consuming an unprecedented area of almost 39,942 sq. ft.

49. Thus, the pleadings and records show that the 8th Respondent submitted a 4-line application to the Kasheli Panchayat on 22 February 2010, referencing House No 9/2 in Village Kasheli. The application is deliberately vague and suggests that permission was sought to reconstruct in place of this ancestral house, a new construction or building. On 26 February 2010, within four days of these respondents applying, the Kasheli Panchayat allegedly issued its permission.

50. Significantly, though a party to this petition, the panchayat has neither bothered to appear nor file any return to confirm whether it has issued this permission or explained its authority to issue such permission. The Kasheli Panchayat issued a vague permission in tearing hurry and without even basic verification of the contents of the application seeking permission. This so-called permission was issued by the Kasheli panchayat with full knowledge that at least from 17 March 2007, the panchayat had ceased to be the planning authority and consequently had no authority to issue the so-called permission. The Kalher panchayat issued no permission but tolerated the brazenly illegal constructions within its jurisdiction even though such construction had no permission from any authorities, including the MMRDA.

51. Based on the above discussion, it is evident that the Kasheli panchayat’s permission was fraudulently obtained, and the constructions were still carried out in Kalher village. The permission is vague and has no nexus with the construction of five buildings. In any event, Kasheli or Kalher Panchayats were not even the competent authorities for issuing such permission, given the provisions of the MRTP Act and the Government’s Notification constituting MMRDA as the special planning authority for this area. The constructions, based upon such permission, are wholly unauthorised and illegal. Incidentally, the Kalher panchayat, where the illegal constructions were made, did not issue permission.

52. For all the above reasons, the vague defence based on the Kasheli Panchayat permission dated 26 February 2010 fails miserably and cannot be accepted.

CONTENTION BASED UPON 2014 AMENDMENT TO THE PANCHAYAT ACT:-

53. Mr Bhosle’s contention based upon an amendment to the Panchayat Act, which entered force on 29 December 2014, is entirely misconceived. Possibly, this is why such a contention was not even pleaded in the returns filed by the 10th Respondent. Regarding the dispute involved in this petition, the amendment vide Maharashtra Act No. 43 of 2014, which entered force on 29 December 2014, has made no difference. Before Maharashtra Act No. 43 of 2014, amending Section 52 of the Panchayat Act, entered force on 29 December 2014, there was an embargo on persons constructing within the limits of any village or any building without previous permissions of the Panchayat. The Panchayat could grant such permissions with or without conditions or refuse such permission.

54. After the amendment, any village for which a draft regional plan or final regional plan has been published under the provisions of the MRTP Act, no person shall construct any building in Gavthan area without previous permission of the Panchayat in the prescribed manner and in other areas of the village without obtaining any previous permission of Collector or any other Official not below the rank of Tahsildar to whom the powers of Collector are delegated. Similarly, sub-section (1A) of Section 52 of the Panchayat Act provides that in the village for which no draft regional plan or final regional plan has been published, no person shall construct any building without obtaining previous permission of the Panchayat in the prescribed manner.

55. Therefore, the provisions of Section 52 of the Panchayat Act, either before or after the amendment of 29 December 2014, do not dispense with compliance with the provisions of Section 52 of the MRTP Act. Under Section 52 of the MRTP Act, permission from the planning authority is a must. Besides, once the notification is issued under Section 40(1) notifying an area and appointing MMRDA to be a special planning authority for the said notified area, permission from such special planning authority is a must.

56. Even if it is assumed that the Panchayat was the planning authority as of the date of issue of the notification dated 17 March 2007, from the said date onwards, the panchayat ceased to function as a planning authority in relation to the notified area, i.e. Kalher and Kasheli. From 17 March 2007, any permission, if granted by the panchayat for the notified areas of Kalher and Kasheli, would be a nullity. Based on such permissions, there was no question of respondents 8, 9 and 10 constructing five buildings. This is apart from the fact that even the Panchayat’s permissions do not appear to permit the construction of these five buildings at all. Therefore, the argument based on the amending date is entirely misconceived.

57. There is virtually no dispute that the construction of the wholly unauthorised and illegal buildings is in the village of Kalher, which has its own panchayat. The pleadings in the petition are not denied or evasively denied. The affidavits and orders made by the Tahsildar confirm this position. The petitioners have also placed unimpeached material on record to establish this aspect. Therefore, based upon the so-called Kasheli panchayat permission, no constructions could ever have been undertaken within the limits of Kalher panchayat.

ENCROACHMENT ON GOVERNMENT LANDS AND TAHSILDAR’S UNCHALLENGED ORDERS DATED 23RD DECEMBER 2013:-

58. Then, there is an issue of encroachment on government land. respondents 8, 9, and 10, except for stating that such adjudication would involve the disputed questions of fact, have not placed any material on record to show that they had any rights to the entire property in Kalher, where they put up the illegal constructions. In contrast, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the MMRDA’s affidavit state that the subject property, i.e. the property surveyed under number 12 in the village Kalher or Kasheli, Taluka- Bhiwandi, District- Thane, “belongs to the State Government”. This affidavit refers to the 7/12 extract of survey No.12 and mutation entry No.5581, wherein it is reflected that the said land belongs to the State Government.

59. The Tahsildar’s five orders dated 23 December 2013 also hold that respondents 8 and 9 have partially encroached upon government lands. Respondents 8, 9, and 10 have placed no material on record to rebut the conclusions drawn by the governmental authorities, inter alia, in their orders dated 23rd December 2013. These orders were made after providing respondents 8 and 9 full opportunity. These orders have not been questioned or set aside by the competent authority or any Court of law. Accordingly, this is yet another ground to hold that five buildings constructed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 are fully unauthorised and at least partially constitute gross encroachments on government lands.

60. As noted above, five separate orders dated 23 December 2013 have not been challenged by respondents 8, 9 and 10 by taking out any substantive proceedings before the competent authority or competent Court of law. The affidavits filed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 do not even refer to the Tahsildar’s orders dated 23 December 2013, which have now attained finality. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the 10th respondent did try to pick holes in the Tahsildar’s order and urge that such orders should be completely ignored even though they have not been set aside or stayed. This is clearly impermissible. Respondents 8, 9 and 10 cannot collaterally challenge such orders, at least in the gross facts and circumstances of the present case.

61. In any event, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the orders dated 23 December 2013. The orders have been made after granting the affected parties full opportunity to present their version. The orders deal with most of the arguments advanced by respondents 8, 9 and 10. The orders correctly take cognisance of the State Government’s notification dated 17 March 2007 and hold that the panchayat permissions were worthless after this date. Besides, as we noted, even the panchayat permissions do not appear to relate to the five buildings. The orders dated 23 December 2013 also take cognisance of partial encroachment on the government’s land. Even the lands restored by the appellate authority had to be used only for agricultural purposes for which they were allotted. There was no question about constructing five unauthorised buildings upon such restored lands. Thus, even assuming that respondents 8 and 9 could collaterally challenge the orders dated 23 December 2013, we are satisfied that no case has been made to sustain such challenges.

GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND MMRDA PASSED BUCK AND AVOIDED ACTION AFTER ACCEPTING THE ILLEGALITIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIVE BUILDINGS:-

62. In this case, Mr Bhushan B. Halwane filed an affidavit on behalf of the MMRDA on 06 February 2020. In this affidavit, the MMRDA relied upon the notification dated 17 March 2007 and submitted that the MMRDA is the exclusive planning authority for the villages Kasheli and Kalher w.e.f. 17 March 2007, and obtaining prior permissions from the MMRDA was mandatory. The affidavit states that the MMRDA has not issued any permissions for the buildings, which are the subject matter of this petition.

63. The MMRDA affidavit then refers to certain directions in PIL no. 46 of 2013, pursuant to which MMRDA had convened a meeting of the officers of the Zilla Parishad and Village Panchayat to take action against illegal constructions on the notified land. It was submitted that at the meeting held on 11 February 2015, it was decided that various government departments should act against the said illegal constructions. The affidavit refers to the Maharashtra Government’s circular dated 07 September 2010, which also provided that it would be the responsibility of the concerned government’s department of the State of Maharashtra to protect the land from encroachments.

64. The MMRDA, in paragraph No.8 of its affidavit, therefore, contended that though it was the special planning authority appointed for this area, “no action is required to be taken by the MMRDA against the unauthorised construction carried out on the subject government land”. The MMRDA pleaded in the affidavit that the Tahsildar had already initiated action against the unauthorised constructions in 2013. Based on the same, it is now up to the Tahsildar or the Collector to take further action.

MMRDA stated that it had written to the Collector on 03 January 2020 urging necessary action on the unauthorised development carried out on government land. After all this, MMRDA, in its last paragraph, submits that the petitioners have failed to make out any prima facie case for the grant of any orders against the MMRDA.

65. Shri Shashikant Gaikwad, Tahsildar Bhiwandi, Taluka- Bhiwandi, District- Thane, filed an affidavit on 06 March 2020. The tenor of the affidavit is that the MMRDA is the special planning authority, and therefore, it is for the MMRDA to take action against the unauthorised construction. The Tahsildar has referred to certain letters urging the MMRDA to take action. The Tahsildar concludes by stating that the petitioner can file a suit for a mandatory injunction to remove unauthorised structures and thereby safeguard his personal rights.

66. Mr Gorakh Bhanudas Phadtare, Residential Naib Tahsildar, Taluka—Bhiwandi, District—Thane, also filed an affidavit on 05 April 2021. This affidavit purports to explain the action taken by the Tahsildar on the complaints of the illegal construction undertaken by respondents 8, 9, and 10. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of this affidavit refer to the MMRDA as the special planning authority for the village of Kalher, where the illegal constructions have been put up, and state that it is for the MMRDA to take action. This affidavit also purports to raise certain issues of identification of the property, inability to carry out the measurement, give details of construction and send original 7/12 extracts of holders of the land and adjoining lands and to try to rope in the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records.

67. On perusing the affidavits of the two Tahsildars and the MMRDA, it is evident that both authorities have confirmed and reconfirmed that the construction of the five buildings is wholly unauthorised because such constructions were put up without the permission of the MMRDA and further because such constructions were put up on government land. Despite all this, the Tahsildars and the MMRDA pass on the buck to each other and suggest that the petitioners institute a civil suit and not seek any writ against them for enforcing their orders. This is extremely unfortunate and clearly evincing an indifferent attitude. The reluctance of the Tahsildars and MMRDA to take action despite reiterating that constructions by respondents 8, 9 and 10 are wholly unauthorised and illegal is extremely surprising and cannot be countenanced. It is precisely this attitude that encourages lawlessness, rampant illegal constructions, and encroachment on government lands. The governmental authorities forget that they are the trustees of the government lands, and therefore, they cannot allow such large-scale encroachments on government lands. The MMRDA can also not avoid acting against illegal constructions.

68. There is no justification for not implementing or executing the demolition orders dated 23 December 2013 for the last 11 years, even though no competent authority or Court of law stayed the execution of those orders. The Petitioners were forced to come to this Court to seek a direction to the statutory respondents to implement their own orders dated 23 December 2013.

69. Fortunately, the learned AGP quite correctly submitted that the five buildings are unauthorised and constitute an encroachment on the government’s land. She also correctly submitted that the orders dated 23 December 2013 must be enforced. These submissions are correct, and the governmental authorities are bound to enforce their own orders and remove the illegal constructions and encroachment on government land.

PERSONAL VENDETTA, DISPUTED FACTS, AND CIVIL SUITS DEFENCE:-

70. The arguments of personal vendetta or the institution of a suit by the petitioners are misconceived. Although the petitioners may have instituted a suit, such suit was withdrawn to pursue the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the statutory finality accorded to the orders made or notices issued under the MRTP Act vide Section 149.

71. Besides, the suits for protecting civil rights or asserting title can always be instituted and continued. The institution or the continuance of such suits does not bar the institution of this petition, which has nothing to do with the inter se disputes of title between the Petitioners and respondents 8 and 9. Whatever the result of such inter se disputes, the gross illegalities in the brazen construction of the five buildings by brazenly encroaching on a part of government land or without any permissions from the competent authorities cannot simply be wiped out. Therefore, based on such arguments, no case is made out to dismiss this petition as was urged by Mr Bhosle, learned counsel for the 10th respondent.

72. Though the orders made by the co-ordinate bench on 25 March 2021 and 30 March 2021 record the statements of at least respondents 8 and 9 that the five buildings put up by them were unauthorised, we have still examined the issue of illegality or otherwise of the five buildings independent of such admissions and concluded that the construction of the five buildings without the permission of MMRDA and by partially encroaching on government land is wholly unauthorised and illegal. Thus, we have not gone by the admissions of respondents 8 and 9 but independently examined and concluded that the constructions are wholly unauthorised and illegal.

73. The 8th and 9th respondents tried to push the entire blame on the 10th respondent, and the 10th respondent tried to push the blame on the 8th and 9th respondents. In the returns filed by and on behalf of the 8th, 9th and 10th respondents, there is no answer to the fact that the constructions were put up without any permission from the MMRDA, which was the exclusive planning authority post notification dated 17 March 2007. There were only evasive denials about the constructions being put up in the village Kalher that the so-called permissions were obtained from the Village Panchayat of Kasheli. There is no answer to the constructions being undertaken without N.A. Sanad or other statutory permissions. There is no clear explanation of how Kasheli Panchayat permissions relate to constructing the five buildings in Kalher. Thus, from the affidavit filed by respondents 8, 9 and 10, it is clear that there is no explanation for this large-scale illegality and unauthorised construction undertaken by them.

74. If the returns filed by the private respondents are perused, then the very same defences as now urged by Mr Bhosle have been urged in those returns. Therefore, instead of relying upon the acknowledgement of illegalities by private respondents, we have examined the contentions raised by the private respondent but found no merit whatsoever in any of such contentions. The private respondents have indulged in serious and brazen illegalities by constructing five buildings without permission from the proper authority and by at least partially encroaching upon the government’s land.

DIRECTIONS FOR DEPOSIT OF AMOUNTS TO COMPENSATE FLAT BUYERS:-

75. From the returns filed and other materials on record, it does appear that the 10th respondent is prone to indulge in this type of fraud to cheat unsuspecting purchasers. Therefore, this Court directed respondents 8, 9 and 10 to file detailed affidavits on various aspects, such as the income earned from this entire transaction of constructing and disposing of the apartments in five buildings. The petitioners have alleged that the affidavits failed to disclose all details. However, since the Contempt Petition has already been filed, we do not propose to address the issue of compliance or noncompliance with the direction in our order dated 30 March 2021 in this judgment and order.

76. Although no detailed analysis of the affidavits already filed by respondents 8, 9 and 10 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 25 March 2021 and 30 March 2021 is being undertaken due to the pendency of the Contempt Petition, still from the returns filed, it is evident that respondents 8, 9 and 10 have profited from the illegal construction put up by. About 15 apartments were allotted by the 10th to the 8th and 9th respondents. Several apartments have been sold to third parties. In the order dated 30 March 2021, it was recorded that respondents 8 and 9 had admitted to making profits of Rs.[2] Crores or thereabouts. However, afterwards, this amount was sought to be scaled down to Rs. 1.25 Crores. In terms of the affidavits filed, apartments were sold in the years 2011 to 2013. The 10th respondent, though not very candid, has also admitted to making some profits. These profits were made between the year 2011 and 2013.

77. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, respondents 8, 9, and 10 are jointly and severally directed to deposit Rs. 8 Crores in this Court within two months from today. This amount would then have to be distributed pro-rata to the flat purchasers who could, prima facie, be said to be the victims of all the grossly illegal and fraudulent acts of respondents 8, 9, and 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no mercy must be shown towards illegal constructions and builders who put up such illegal constructions. But, to the extent possible, the apartment purchases who are victims must be compensated. The builders must not be permitted to retain and enjoy the fruits of their illegal and fraudulent acts. Some reparations are a must in such matters.

78. The Collector, District – Thane, is tasked with recovering Rs.[8] Crores from respondents 8, 9, and 10 if they fail to deposit this amount in this Court within two months. The Collector, District - Thane, will also have to prepare a report giving details of flat purchasers in the wholly unauthorised five buildings and the amounts paid by them for the purchase of the flats. Based on this report, this Court will consider distributing the compensation to the said flat purchasers pro rata. This compensation will be in addition to the compensation the flat purchasers can claim against respondents 8, 9, and 10 (and any other parties) by filing civil suits. Therefore, such compensation will not prevent the flat purchasers from suing respondents 8, 9, and 10 for damages, compensation, etc.

79. The above direction for the deposit of amounts is consistent with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matters of the sale of illegally constructed flats by unscrupulous builders and developers to unsuspecting buyers. In any event, respondents 8, 9, and 10 cannot retain the profits they amassed by selling the flats from the illegally constructed buildings on government lands. The interim orders made in this petition are hereby confirmed. Respondents 8, 9 and 10 are restrained from alienating or dealing with their assets until they deposit Rs. 8 Crores in this Court. The restraint on operating the bank accounts will also continue until the amount is deposited.

80. In Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that rampant increase in unauthorised constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings, has been noticed in several decisions of Supreme Court. This state of affairs has often come to pass in no small measure because of the collusion between developers and planning authorities. From commencement to completion, the developers' construction process is regulated within the framework of the law. The regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the structures under construction, obtaining clearances from different departments (fire, garden, sewage, etc.), and the issuance of occupation and completion certificates.

81. The Court held that while the availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it has to be balanced with two crucial considerations – protecting the environment and the well-being and safety of those who occupy these constructions. The regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions with a severe negative environmental impact are not sanctioned. Hence, when planning and building regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1 standards. Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

82. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that a breach by the planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the violation of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance. Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between builders and planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet, confronted with the economic might of developers and the might of legal authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle for rights with little certainty of outcomes. As this case demonstrates, they are denied access to information and are victims of misinformation. Hence, the law must step in to protect their legitimate concerns.

83. In Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Others[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the last five decades, the provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring implementation of the Master Plan, etc. have miserably failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so despite the fact that the Supreme Court has, keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the ecology (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 357 and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the concerned authorities against arbitrary regularisation of illegal constructions by way of compounding and otherwise. The Court rejected the argument that the flat buyers should not be penalised for illegality committed by developers/builders in raising construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. This Court held that such pleas sound attractive at first blush, but on closer scrutiny, there is no merit in such pleas.

84. Considering the gross illegalities in the present case, the only remedy available to the flat purchasers is to sue respondents 8, 9, and 10 for the return of money and damages. There can be no question about regularising such gross illegalities brazenly perpetrated by respondents 8, 9 and 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage the violation of sanctioned plans. Here, respondents 8, 9 and 10 have not even bothered to obtain sanctions from the MMRDA, which was the competent authority for sanctioning the plans. The Courts are also expected to refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for the regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions, which would encourage violators of planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of planning and development of urban and rural areas.

85. In Friends Colony Development Committee Vs. State of Orissa and Others[3], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took cognisance of the record disclosing a very sorry and sordid state of affairs prevailing in the matter of illegal and unauthorised constructions in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 733 the city of Cuttack. The Court observed that builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge in deviations. The builder conveniently walks away, having pocketed the money, leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorised constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. If such activities are to stop, some stringent actions must be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and noncompoundable deviations. The unwary purchasers, who shall be the sufferers, must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders. At the same time, to secure vigilant performance of duties, responsibility should be fixed on the officials whose duty was to prevent unauthorised constructions but who failed in doing so either by negligence or due to connivance.

86. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned constructions being regularised by compounding, but that is by way of exception. Unfortunately, with the lapse of time and frequent exercise of the discretionary power conferred by such exceptions, the exception has become the rule. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as bona fide or are attributable to some misunderstanding or where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. Deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. Deviations by professional builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits. Hence, they deserve to be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for the future. The State Governments should think of levying heavy penalties on such builders and, therefore, develop a welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced on account of the demolition of illegal constructions.

87. In Monish Chintaman Patil v State of Maharashtra[4], after considering the various judgements, this Court directed the demolition of the entire building constructed on CIDCO land.

RELIEFS AND DIRECTIONS:-

88. For all the above reasons, we dispose of this Writ Petition by making the following order:- (a) Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 must take immediate steps to enforce the orders dated 23 December 2013 made by the Tahsildar and to demolish the five wholly unauthorised buildings put by respondents 8, 9 and 10 on the property surveyed under No. 12, Village- Kalher, Taluka- Bhiwandi, District - Thane. This exercise must be completed within six months, and in any event, before 1 February 2025, so that flat purchasers have sufficient time to relocate; (b) The Collector of Thane must issue notices to the flat purchasers within a month, giving them six months to vacate the flats. However, if the flat purchasers refuse to vacate, the Collector must evict them with the assistance of the police and then demolish the illegally constructed buildings;

(c) The Collector, District - Thane, is tasked with the responsibility of holding enquiries and determining the fair 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 918 distribution of this amount of Rs.[8] Crores amongst the flat purchasers in the five wholly unauthorised buildings that are now ordered to be demolished; The Collector, District - Thane, must, within two months, submit a report in this regard in this Court indicating the tentative amounts that could be paid to the flat purchasers out of the amount of Rs.[8] Crores, which is to be deposited by respondents 8, 9 and 10; The final distribution of this amount of Rs.[8] Crores would be under the orders of this Court;

(d) The receipt of this amount would not in any manner prejudice the flat purchasers in the five wholly unauthorised buildings from suing respondents 8, 9 and 10 (and any other parties) for further and higher amounts; (e) The flat purchasers in the five wholly unauthorised buildings can sue respondents 8, 9 and 10 (and any other parties) for return of purchase price, damages, etc., before the competent Courts of law. If flat purchasers institute such suits, the concerned Civil Court should endeavour to dispose of such suits as expeditiously as possible; (f) Though the directions for the demolition of five unauthorised buildings are issued to respondents 1 to 4, the MMRDA and the Collector of Thane shall be primarily responsible for the implementation. Therefore, the Collector, District- Thane, must file a compliance report in this Court within 15 days of compliance by annexing photographs to the report. Such compliance report must be filed on or before 15 February 2025; (g) The interim orders made in this petition are hereby confirmed. Respondents 8, 9 and 10 are restrained from alienating or dealing with their assets until they deposit Rupees Eight crores in this Court. The restraint on operating the bank accounts will continue until such a deposit is made; (h) The 1st Respondent is directed to take cognisance of the prima facie dereliction of duty by the Panchayats of Kasheli and Kalher under Section 144 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 and take necessary actions against all concerned after following the principles of natural justice. The 1st Respondent must file a compliance report by 15 February 2025;

(i) The 1st Respondent is directed to inquire regarding the delay caused in taking action for two years since the complaint was received from the Petitioners and the failure to implement the orders dated 23 December 2013 made by the Tahsildar; the responsibility must be fixed on the officers and appropriate proceedings must also be initiated. The 1st Respondent must file a compliance report by 15 February 2025; (j) The rule is made absolute in the above terms.

89. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

90. All concerned can act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Kamal Khata, J) (M. S. Sonak, J) Designation: PA To Honourable Judge