Bombay High Court
Vijay Rambhauji Babhare Nagpur vs The Nagpur Municipal Corportion And ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
26-WP-198-2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NOS. 198 OF 2005 AND 1025 OF 2016
(Vijay s/o Rambhauji Babhare Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Nagpur &
Ors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. N.A. Gaikwad, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent no.3/State.
Mr. N.A. Padhye, Counsel for respondent no.4.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
FEBRUARY 3, 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 1025/2016 In response to order dated 6/1/2026, respondent no.1 has placed on record names of the Officers, who were responsible for taking action but have not taken action of demolition. Respondent no.1 has also furnished names of the Commissioners during the said period.
2] The petitioner shall join these Officers and Commissioners as party respondents. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith. Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, shall provide addresses of the Officers and Commissioners to the Counsel for the petitioner before 2:30 pm today.
3] Issue show cause notice to the newly added respondents as to why action should not be recommended against them in terms of order dated 6/1/2026 returnable on 17/2/2026.
26-WP-198-2005 24] Respondent no.1 shall serve copy of notice on the newly added respondents. This will be in addition to the notice that will be served through usual mode.
5] Kept back at 2:30 pm today.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
LATER ON
6] Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for
respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that final order, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, In Re [(2025) 5 SCC 1], was passed on 13/1/2026. The order has been challenged by respondent no.4, before the learned Single Judge and the Court was pleased to grant stay to the final order. Accordingly, demolition process could not be commenced.
7] We may invite attention of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Others Vs. Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Limtied [(2019) 20 SCC 781], wherein, the Court issued various directions to deal with illegal/unauthorized constructions located within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporations. The directions issued in paragraph 24.4 appears to us to be relevant for the present case. The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General, Bombay High Court, to serve copy of judgment upon the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, as well as the Municipal Secretary, Urban Development Department, 26-WP-198-2005 3 Mumbai, with a direction to serve upon all the Municipal Corporations in the entire State of Maharashtra. These directions, having been given for construction in the Municipal Corporation area, respondent nos. 1 and 2 were bound to follow these directions, they instead focused on the directions given in the subsequent judgments, which were issued mainly in the backdrop of the action of demolition taken by the State against the citizens, who were accused of commission of crime.
8] We may also invite attention of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767], wherein, the Court deprecated illegal/unauthorized constructions in following terms :
"19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts/Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction. The following decisions are of relevance and hence cited herein below to drive home the point that unauthorized constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not kid gloves......"
9] The Court, then, referred to the judgment in Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, In Re (supra), and held thus :
26-WP-198-2005 4"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 26-WP-198-2005 5 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."
10] Thereafter, the Court thought it proper to issue additional directions.
11] Considering above, there is no gainsaying that illegal/unauthorized construction should be dealt with by iron hand, and not kid gloves.
12] So far as present case is concerned, when enquired, Mr. Kasat submits that the first notice was issued on 24/11/1998 directing respondent no.4 to remove the unauthorized construction, which includes construction i] at basement admeasuring 510.58 square meters; ii] at basement admeasuring 123.42 square meters; iii] on first to eighth floor towards northern side admeasuring 127.28 square meters; iv] on first floor admeasuring 39.81 square meters; and v] on service floor admeasuring 1000.39 square meters.
13] The second notice was given on 7/4/1999 calling upon respondent no.4 to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction. Despite both the notices, respondent no.4 has not removed/demolished the construction.
14] At this stage, the Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that reply to notice dated 24/11/1998 was submitted in or about December - 1998. However, copy of reply is not placed on record and, therefore, cannot be 26-WP-198-2005 6 considered. He seeks time to place the same on record. In our view, copy ought to have been filed along with reply. He may, however, file the same before next date.
15] When further enquired, Mr. Kasat submits that neither notice dated 24/11/1998 nor notice date 7/4/1999 is/was challenged by respondent no.4. In fact, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are now acting upon the aforesaid notice.
16] We are now informed that respondent no.4 filed an application dated 2/6/2025 seeking sanction for the development work, which came to be refused vide communication dated 3/2/2026. The Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has tendered across the bar copy of order dated 3/2/2026, which is taken on record, and marked Article 'X' for identification. Copy of said order is given today in the Court to the Counsels appearing for other parties.
17] The Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that respondent no.4 submitted a proposal to pull down the structure and construct a new construction as per revised plan. This proposal is now refused.
18] Thus, in a way, respondent no.4 has accepted that the structure under question is unauthorized. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, however, are not taking necessary steps.
19] Upon further enquiry, we did not get any convincing answer from respondent nos. 1 and 2 as to why was action not taken pursuant to these notices. Thus, it is apparent that instead of acting with iron hand against 26-WP-198-2005 7 unauthorized construction, the respondents are acting with kid gloves, which practice needs to be deprecated.
WRIT PETITION NO. 198/200520] Mr. J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, submits that final order, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, In Re [(2025) 5 SCC 1], was passed on 20/1/2026. The order has been challenged by respondent no.4, before the learned Single Judge was pleased to grant stay to the final order. Accordingly, demolition process could not be initiated.
21] We may invite attention of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And Others Vs. Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Limtied [(2019) 20 SCC 781], wherein, the Court issued various directions to deal with illegal/unauthorized constructions. The Court directed the Registrar General, Bombay High Court, to serve copy of judgment upon the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, as well as the Municipal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai, with a direction to ensure that copy of judgment is served upon all the Municipal Corporations in the entire State of Maharashtra. These directions, having been given for construction in the Municipal Corporation area, respondent nos. 1 and 2 were bound to follow these directions, they instead focused on the directions given in the subsequent judgments, which were issued mainly in the backdrop of the action of demolition taken by the 26-WP-198-2005 8 State against the citizens, who were accused of commission of crime.
22] We may also invite attention of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767], wherein, the Court deprecated illegal/unauthorized constructions in following terms :
"19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts/Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction. The following decisions are of relevance and hence cited herein below to drive home the point that unauthorized constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not kid gloves......"
23] The Court, then, referred to the judgment in Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, In Re (supra), and held thus :
"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 26-WP-198-2005 9 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."
24] Thereafter, the Court thought it proper to issue additional directions.
26-WP-198-2005 1025] Considering above, there is no gainsaying that illegal/unauthorized construction should be dealt with firm hand, and not kid gloves. In the present case, we are pained to find that the respondents are dealing with the issue with kid gloves.
26] The Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that revised plan was submitted on 9/2/2016, decision on which has been not taken. Mr. Kasat disputed such status. The Counsels, however, have not shown us documentary evidence in support.
27] List for further consideration on 17/2/2026.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/02/2026 20:17:46