Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11 The learned counsel for the petitioner in PIL No.80 of 2013 has submitted that there is no material difference between the earlier policy which was held to be arbitrary by this Court and the present policy. He invited our attention to the several decisions of the Apex Court and this Court which were already discussed while dealing with the earlier policy. He submitted that the proposed policy provides for regularization of illegal buildings which have been erected contrary to the MRTP Act and DCR. He submitted that the question is of regularizing the multi-storied illegal buildings constructed on public properties. He submitted that the agreements on record show that the flat purchasers have taken the flats by executing the Agreements containing the recitals that the construction is completely illegal. Inviting our attention to the observations made by this Court while dealing with the case of illegal constructions in Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, he submitted that the citizens who were legitimately occupying the lawfully constructed structures cannot ssp/gaonkar 11 pil80with 138 be deprived of civic amenities as such large scale illegal constructions have put pressure on the civil amenities.

Therefore, the constructions made contrary to the provisions of DCR can be regularized subject to no objection certificate issued the Competent Authority. Therefore, sub-clause 1(i) of clause A is completely contrary to the provisions of the MRTP Act and the DCR. The same is the case with sub- clause 1(ii).

23 Sub-Clause 2 of Clause A does not pose any difficulty as it provides that structurally unsafe unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized. Even otherwise, under the existing law, such constructions cannot be regularized. Sub-Clause 3 of Clause A provides that regularization of unauthorized constructions made on inam and Class-II lands can be considered on production of no ssp/gaonkar 20 pil80with 138 objection certificate from the Competent Authority. Under Sub-clause 3, it is possible to regularize illegal constructions even on inam lands and occupancy class-II lands which may not be permissible under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 without seeking permission for change of user. Sub-Clause 4 of Clause A provides that any unauthorized construction on the land reserved for roads cannot be regularized. Further portion records that unauthorized construction on lands with reservation cannot be regularized unless such reservation is shifted or deleted by the Planning Authority after following the due process of law. No construction is permissible contrary to the reservations provided in a Development Plan. This provision suggests that for regularizing unauthorized constructions on the reserved land, the State Government can even shift or delete the reservation. It follows that if an application for regularization of illegal constructions made on such reserved lands is filed, the same will be kept pending till the reservation is shifted or is deleted. This will give one more excuse to pray that an illegal structure on a reserved land should be protected till the decision is taken by the Government to shift or cancel the reservation. Shifting and/or changing the reservation of reserved plot for protecting illegal structures will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(emphasis added) 35 In Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the said judgment and order, this Court has noted the consequences of regularization of large number of illegal constructions contrary to the Development Plan, MRTP Act and DCR. It is pointed out in Paragraph 26 that the policy will protect more than 2,50,000 illegal buildings in the State apart from the slums. In case of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, this Court noted that there were more than 66,000 illegal constructions identified in the ssp/gaonkar 38 pil80with 138 year 2012. This Court has further noted that only in one village, out of 96 villages forming part of Navi Mumbai, there are more than 100 illegal buildings. We may note here that as far as the number of illegal constructions are concerned, in the subsequent orders passed by this Court shocking state of affairs have been noted. In the order dated 16th January 2017, this Court has noted that as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, 303 illegal structures are constructed or are being constructed within the area of NMMC in the year 2015. In fact, it is noted that after 1st January 2016, more than 130 illegal structures have come within the area of the said Corporation. A list of such structures has been notified in a daily newspaper dated 1st September 2016.

40 As far as the second Annexure to the draft policy is concerned, it lays down the proposed amendment to the MRTP Act. We have already observed that the proposed amendments are necessary for preventing unauthorized constructions. If the real ssp/gaonkar 41 pil80with 138 intention of the State was to prevent the construction of illegal structures, the State could have always come out with the amendment to the MRTP Act for which leave of this Court is not required. But, somehow, the State Government seems to have linked the legislative measures which are required to be taken for preventing the illegal structures across the State with the regularization of existing illegal structures. The same is the case with the administrative measures for prevention and for controlling the illegal constructions. Even for implementing these administrative measures, a permission of this Court was not necessary. It cannot be that only after this Court grants approval to the policy of regularization of large number of of illegal constructions that the State adopts legislative and administrative measures for prevention and control of illegal constructions.