[ad_1]
THE BOMBAY High Court recently expressed its disapproval on the approach by individuals constructing unauthorised structures by defying civic planning laws and then seeking shelter under regularisation policies. The HC said municipal corporations should immediately demolish such structures even while the construction is on.
It was hearing a plea by a petitioner from Ulhasnagar whose plea for regularisation of several hundred square feet construction above permissible limit was rejected. Holding that such approach “undermines rule of law”, it rejected interim relief sought by her to stop removal of the unauthorised portion by the civic body.
In another matter, denying relief to a shop owner in Mumbai, the court observed that regularisation of unauthorised portions is sought in the nature of “fundamental right” and the same “turns the entire concept of planning law on its head”.
The same bench had last month initiated a suo motu plea raising concerns over “rampant illegalities” constructed on government lands in municipal areas and said the same will not be allowed “under its watch”. It said the time has come to change the “nothing will happen” attitude of the errant people.
A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Kamal R Khata on October 4 was hearing an appeal by Ishwari Jairamdas Chainani, who claimed that she was entitled for regularisation of the structure and sought interim stay on action of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation which began steps to remove extended portion constructed without permission.
The bench referred to “deliberate confusion” between what is irregular and illegal and said that for the last six decades, it has been settled by the Supreme Court that “an illegality is incurable” and it is “not irregularity”.
The bench said there was “no question of granting interim relief” and noted in its order, “We specifically disapprove of this approach to municipal planning law where individuals believe that no planning law applies to them, that they can construct whatever they like and then seek shelter under some policy of regularisation. We have told every Municipal Corporation that is before us that it should take immediate action to demolish even while construction is going on. We see no reason to make an exception in this particular case.”
The High Court also noted that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate that permission was given for the extended portion or it was merely irregularly done. “What is now being attempted is to say that although there were no permissions, an application can now be made post facto to obtain that permission so as to sanctify that which was done without the authority of law. An approach like this undermines, most of all, the rule of law. We will not permit it. If this approach is to be condoned, then we might as well not have a planning law at all.” The court asked the UMC to dispose of the pending appeal by the petitioner “at its earliest convenience”.
Most Read
The next day, the same bench rejected a plea by one Prakash Mohandas Aswani, having his shop on the premises of one Vallabha Krupa Co Operative Housing Society. The plea was against action of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) that rejected his regularisation application stating that the structure was unauthorised.
The bench termed it “yet another example of individuals trying to make a complete mockery of all planning norms and laws” and added that there are several dozen such cases it deals with on a daily basis.
The court added, “This has now become a situation where regularisation is almost in the nature of a fundamental right. Every person seems to believe that planning law is irrelevant and that he or she is entitled to put up an entirely unauthorised construction and can then simply seek regularisation as a matter of right. This turns the entire concept of planning law on its head…”
[ad_2]
Source link
