Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized by general resolution; statutory permission and limited compounding remain essential.
The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 requires development permission, and unauthorized construction is liable to penal action and removal under the statutory scheme. Section 143 permits compounding in appropriate cases, but it does not confer a general power on a municipal council to regularize large-scale unauthorized construction by resolution, especially without a retention application or State approval. Payment of development charges does not cure illegality or create a right to regularisation. The Court emphasised that discretionary relief should not perpetuate deliberate illegality or undermine planned development, and upheld demolition of the unauthorized structure.
Issues: (i) Whether the Municipal Council had power under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to regularize unauthorized construction by a general resolution and whether such construction could be saved from demolition; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in directing demolition of the unauthorized structure.
Issue (i): Whether the Municipal Council had power under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to regularize unauthorized construction by a general resolution and whether such construction could be saved from demolition?
Analysis: Permission for development under Section 44 is mandatory. Where construction is carried out without permission or contrary to permission, the statutory scheme in Sections 52 and 53 authorises penal action and removal of the unauthorized development. The power under Section 143 is only to compound offences in appropriate cases; it does not confer a general power to regularize unauthorized constructions. The Municipal Council, being a statutory authority, could act only within the four corners of the Act and had no jurisdiction to validate large-scale unauthorized construction by resolution, especially where no application for retention was made and the State had not approved the proposal.
Conclusion: The resolution could not legalize the unauthorized construction and the appellants were not entitled to regularisation.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in directing demolition of the unauthorized structure?
Analysis: Once notice was issued under the statutory scheme and no application for retention or regularization was made within the prescribed time, the authority was bound to proceed in accordance with law. Payment of development charges did not create any right to regularization or wipe out the illegality. The Court also held that discretionary relief cannot be granted in a manner that encourages illegality or defeats planned development, and that the cited precedent did not assist the appellants on the facts found.
Conclusion: The direction for demolition was valid and required no interference.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the challenge to the demolition order was rejected, and the unauthorized construction was directed to be removed in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A local authority cannot regularize unauthorized construction by a general resolution when the statute provides only for permission, notice, removal, and limited compounding of offences; courts will not protect deliberate illegality or exercise discretion to perpetuate unauthorized development.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
