Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

At the hearing, Mr.N.Ashok Kumar learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, submitted that on 12-10-2015, respondent No.4 had issued a notice under Section 452 (1) of the GHMC Act, 1955, and that on receipt of the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have approached the civil Court and obtained an interim injunction order.

The facts noted above are very familiar to this Court in many a case. The Municipal Corporation, which is charged with the responsibility of Planned Development, does not appear to be discharging its functions effectively in curtailing the menace of illegal constructions. The staff of the Corporation, who are expected to undertake surveillance over the constructions, appear to be failing in their duty to report illegal constructions to their higher officials, as a result of which, complaints of illegal constructions are galore by way of Writ Petitions before this Court. In most of the cases, notices are being issued by the Municipal Corporation only after the aggrieved persons made their complaints or after they approach this Court by filing Writ Petitions. What this Court is unable to understand is as to why the Corporation is not detecting the illegal constructions on its own and preventing them at the inception itself instead of waiting for the aggrieved parties to give a complaint. This Court is also noticing that immediately on receipt of notices, the violators go to the civil Court, obtain orders of injunction and complete the constructions in the guise of such injunction orders. This has been happening to a set pattern. This Court feels that it is high time that this menace is curbed before it becomes too late. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to file his personal affidavit as to the measures he is proposing to undertake to nip in the bud the illegal constructions without forcing the aggrieved parties to resort to avoidable litigation.

17. Contemporaneous to the judgment in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee (2 supra), the Bench comprising the same learned Judges, in Esha Ekta Apartments Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai echoed the views of the earlier judgments.

18. The serious concern shown by the highest court of the land in the afore- mentioned judgments did not appear to have any impact whatsoever either on the violators of the building laws or on the executive governments. Undeterred by the strong indictment of regularisation schemes, the successive governments have been coming out with regularisation schemes every now and then. The schemes have been proved as havens for the violators and a curse for the society. As held by the Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee (2 supra), the common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorized constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan and that the failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors. This Court wonders as to in what other language the regulatory bodies, such as GHMC, must be told to curb the menace of illegal constructions, free the innocent victims from sufferance and ensure planned development?

6. Considering the fact that illegal constructions are reaching monstrous proportions year after year, this Court is of the firm opinion that mere threat of demolitions cannot effectively curb this social evil, unless serious threat of enforcement of penal provision looms large on the violators. This Court therefore does not see any reason why the Corporation shall not take advantage of the provisions of Section 461(4) of the Act and ensure registration of the criminal cases and arrest of the violators, in cases of unauthorized constructions, i.e., constructions without permission and illegal constructions, i.e., constructions made in deviation of plans, except in cases of minor deviations.

-

XXVII ACJ

-

VII SCJ

-

I JCJ IV JCJ VI JCJ

-

TOTAL From the above reproduced table, it is evident that in all, 1520 suits have been instituted against demolition notices, and that the Civil Courts have granted interim orders of either injunction or status quo in 1431 cases, which not only prevent demolition of illegal constructions by the Corporation, but also enable the violators to make further constructions. This Court does not propose to comment on the manner in which the Civil Courts are exercising jurisdiction, in the interests of propriety. However, this Court cannot refrain from expressing its thorough dissatisfaction at the manner in which the process of law is being abused by the unscrupulous violators, of building laws and destroying the concept of planned development, by taking the aid of the orders of the Courts. This Court, therefore, feels that constitution of a Town Planning Tribunal, excluding the Civil Courts' jurisdiction, is an imminent necessity so that the proposed forum, which must comprise at least one expert in the Town Planning field, may function with all the responsibility as is needed to promote the concept of planned development and prevent proliferation of illegal and unauthorized constructions in municipal areas within the State of Telangana.