Court dismisses appeal against BMC's action, emphasizes no legal rights from unauthorized constructions despite payment of taxes or registrations.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Preeti Manohar Sakpal against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) regarding the demolition of an unauthorized structure on public land in Santacruz (West), Mumbai. The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions on public land do not confer any legal rights or title, despite the payment of property taxes, electricity bills, or shop registrations.
The case revolved around an appeal to set aside a previous order by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, which denied an interim injunction to prevent the BMC from demolishing the structure. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Abhishek Tripathi, argued that her family had been in possession of the premises since 1986, supported by an unregistered agreement, payment of taxes, and other official documents. However, the court found these claims insufficient to establish any legal right over the public land.
Justice Kamal Khata, presiding over the case, noted that the agreement relied upon by the petitioner was inadmissible as it was unregistered and pertained to public land. The court emphasized that such documents do not regularize unauthorized structures or create any legal title. Furthermore, the court highlighted the petitioner's lack of clean hands, citing misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.
The court also addressed a contempt petition against the BMC for a partial demolition conducted despite a stay order. While the court deemed the BMC's explanation of miscommunication unsatisfactory, it accepted the officers' apology and noted the subsequent reconstruction efforts.
In a broader commentary on municipal accountability, the court criticized the prolonged inaction by municipal officers, allowing unauthorized structures to persist. An inquiry was ordered to identify responsible officers, stressing the need for accountability and adherence to the rule of law.
The judgment underscores the legal principles that unauthorized constructions on public streets, including footpaths, cannot claim protection under state guidelines or policies. The court's decision serves as a cautionary tale against attempts to legitimize unauthorized structures through procedural delays and misrepresentation.
The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 lakh, payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, and a stern warning was issued for any future violations by the BMC or its employees.
Bottom Line:
Unauthorized structures on public land do not confer any legal rights on the occupant. Payment of property tax, electricity bills, or shop registration does not regularize unauthorized constructions.
Statutory provision(s):
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sections 314 and 527, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Section 45
