Regularization of Unauthorized Constructions Must Conform to Planning Law, or It Becomes Illegal and Arbitrary

Regularization of unauthorized constructions under the Maharashtra planning regime is permissible only within the existing statutory framework and only where retention is consistent with the draft or sanctioned development plan, Development Control Regulations, and other applicable law. A draft policy that sought to regularize constructions on reserved land, public land, ecologically sensitive areas, and other locations where lawful development could not be granted was treated as going beyond the statute, because it also contemplated shifting or deleting reservations and transferring public property in favour of encroachers. Such a policy was held illegal and arbitrary, and blanket regularization outside the planning law regime was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave should be granted to implement the draft policy for regularization of unauthorized constructions, and whether such policy could authorize regularization of structures contrary to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, the Development Control Regulations, and other laws.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act permits regularization only through the existing mechanism of application for development permission and only where the proposed retention is consistent with the draft or sanctioned development plan, the Development Control Regulations, and other applicable . An application under the regularization provision is treated as an application under the development permission provisions, and the Planning Authority must have due regard to the development plan and cannot act contrary to mandatory planning norms. The draft policy, when read with its annexures, sought to permit regularization of constructions on reserved lands, public lands, ecologically sensitive areas, and other locations where regular development could not lawfully be granted. It also contemplated shifting or deleting reservations and transferring public property in favour of encroachers, which was held to be arbitrary and violative of equality norms. The policy therefore went beyond the existing statutory framework and attempted to authorize what the law itself did not permit.

Conclusion: Leave to implement the draft policy was declined. The policy, to the extent it sought regularization of illegal constructions contrary to the planning law regime, was held to be illegal and arbitrary.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to sanction a blanket regularization policy for unlawful constructions and reaffirmed that regularization is permissible only within the confines of the planning statute and the governing development regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Regularization of unauthorized construction can be permitted only if the construction is otherwise lawful and conforms to the applicable development plan, regulations, and other statutory requirements; a policy authorizing regularization in violation of those norms is arbitrary and unenforceable.

---