Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. It is required to be noted that as the petitioners were engaged in erection of the building unauthorisedly, on 17-6-1999 the respondent issued a notice and called upon the petitioners to stop further construction and to remove the construction as the same was not in accordance with law. Notice under Section 260(1)(a) was also issued and as there was no reply thereto, a direction was given that within a period of three days after removal of unauthorised construction, the Corporation should be informed failing which at the cost of the petitioners the Corporation shall remove unauthorised construction. On 17-6-1999 a notice was also issued indicating that by committing breach of Building Regulations as found in Chapter XII of Appendix IV of the Act, construction was being carried out, and, by a notice the petitioner were called upon to remove the construction or to give reasonable explanation for not removing the same failing which they will be subjected to Section 260(2) of the Act. By the notice, the petitioners were informed that on 7-7-1999 the Officers will enter the premises for removal of construction and there should be no obstruction to their work.

18. The petitioners moved Division Bench by filing Civil Application No. 954 of 2000, inter alia praying to stay implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and the order passed by the learned single Judge. On 21-2-2000, the Division Bench passed the following order :

"Coram : D. M. Dharmadhikari, C. J. and C. K. Thakkar, J.
Let the applicants first demolish the unauthorised construction admittedly raised by them against the building bye-laws and regulations. After demolishing the alleged unauthorised construction, the spot shall be inspected by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the report shall be submitted. A month's time is granted for this period (sic. purpose.) Put up after the report is submitted. For a month, the Corporation will not take any action against the applicants in the matter of unauthorised construction."
21. Reading the report, it is absolutely clear that the petitioners are in no mood to demolish the construction. In our opinion, if once the Court passed an order, the petitioners ought to have removed the unauthorised construction. The order if read, it becomes clear that at the stage of admission it was made clear that the construction admittedly raised by the petitioners is unauthorised and against the building bye-laws and regulations. Direction was given that the applicants first demolish unauthorised construction. However, having not done so, the petition must be dismissed.

37. The Apex Court in the case of M. I. Builders Pvt Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 464 : (AIR 1999 SC 2468) has pointed out that unauthorised construction should be demolished even though the builder has invested considerable amount. The Apex Court pointed as under in paragraph 73 (p. 529) (Para82 Page 2505 of AIR) :

"This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, If it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles."