Because the officer who granted permission was penalised, mUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the demolition of a house in Ulhasnagar whose construction had been approved by a town planner who was later subjected to disciplinary action, observing that the structure cannot be demolished merely.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Viresh Mahindrarka seeking the demolition of a house owned by Rama Nikam. The petition also relied on proceedings against former town planner A P Gurgule, who was a respondent in Mahindrarka’s petition. Following the High Court’s direction, Gurgule faced disciplinary action and a penalty. The judges also refused to accept another objection to the regularisation of Nikam’s house: that it stood in the alignment of a proposed development plan (DP) road. The court noted that the proposed road existed only on paper and that the house did not obstruct any existing road.
The Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC) had issued a completion certificate for the house in 2009. The High Court was told that, in a separate public interest litigation (PIL), it had in 2011 directed the state urban development department and the UMC to inquire into Gurgule’s actions. He had allegedly granted 12 development permissions for illegal structures. The judges, however, pointed out that the 2011 order had directed an inquiry into the town planner’s actions, but had not directed the demolition of the 12 structures in question.
Therefore, it said, “there was no question of it not being regularised”.
The bench further observed, “In any case, we find that down the line, in the year 2026, when much water has flown with the development plan also being revised and definitely, this regularised structure must have been taken into consideration and some other DP road must have been chalked out in the revised development plan. Because the petition alleged that it was unauthorised, the High Court, therefore, was not convinced that the corporation needed to act against the structure simply.
“We do not expect any action at the instance of the corporation against the structure” only on that ground, the judges said.
