The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by a Navi Mumbai resident who sought compensation after his illegally constructed building was demolished. The court affirmed that illegal constructions cannot be regularized retrospectively, emphasizing that “illegality is incurable.”
Hanuman Jairam Naik, 54, had filed a petition against the demolition of his multi-storied building, which he erected on ancestral land without the requisite planning permissions. Despite receiving a notice from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) in 2022 concerning the unauthorized construction, Naik proceeded without responding to the notice.
The demolition, carried out by the Controller of Unauthorised Constructions, CIDCO, on December 27, 2023, followed a civil suit Naik had earlier filed, challenging the notice. Although the Belapur Civil Court had initially directed a status quo on February 15, 2023, this did not prevent the eventual demolition.
In court, Naik’s counsel, advocate Tapan Thatte, argued that the demolition was not only unlawful but also violated the civil court’s directive. Thatte sought a court order for the reconstruction of the demolished building and restoration of possession to Naik, asserting that the officials involved should bear personal liability for the loss. He emphasized that “personal accountability” was essential to prevent violations of citizens’ fundamental rights.
However, the High Court, led by Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, found Naik’s arguments unconvincing. The bench noted that Naik had willfully avoided legal protocols, claiming illiteracy as an excuse, which the court found untenable. “If he had the means to file civil suits, he certainly could have consulted an architect for legal approvals,” the court observed.
The bench also criticized the state government’s lax enforcement, which has allowed the proliferation of unauthorized constructions across Maharashtra. “This emboldens individuals like the petitioner, who assume they can construct first and seek permissions later,” the court remarked, stressing that illiteracy is not a valid defense for violating the law.
While the court considered imposing an exemplary cost of ₹5 lakh on Naik to deter similar future litigation, it ultimately refrained from doing so at the request of Naik’s lawyer.
