KAUSHIK PRAVINCHAND KOTHARI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Illegal Construction and Demolition Orders: Supreme Court Clarification Does Not Override Prior Directives; Collusion to Defy Court Orders Condemned.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:13859-DB
Decision Date: 09-05-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act); Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (MMC Act); Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR); Doctrine of Merger
- Facts: Petitioners, claiming to be leaseholders of shops on plot no. 23 under Town Planning Scheme No. 3 of Ahmednagar, sought regularization of their shops and a stay on demolition by the Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation and the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). The shops were constructed on land earmarked as open space. The APMC had previously sought regularization, which was rejected. The Supreme Court had dismissed earlier SLPs but clarified that the APMC could apply for a change of layout plan. Despite this, the High Court found that the APMC and the Municipal Corporation colluded to defy court orders for demolition.
- Procedural Posture: This writ petition was filed after previous petitions by the shop owners and the APMC were dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the demolition order. The petitioners sought to circumvent the demolition order based on the Supreme Court's clarification allowing the APMC to apply for layout changes.
- Issue: Did the Supreme Court's clarification in its earlier order, allowing the APMC to apply for changes to the layout plan, provide a basis to protect the illegally constructed shops from demolition, despite prior orders directing such demolition?
- Holding: No. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Supreme Court's clarification did not override the original demolition order, and that the APMC and Municipal Corporation were acting in defiance of court orders. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioners.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that previous division benches had already interpreted the Supreme Court's clarification and concluded that there was no escape from the demolition order. The court emphasized that the shops were illegally constructed on open space, warranting "zero tolerance". It found that the petitioners, APMC, and Municipal Corporation were colluding to protract the demolition. The court stated, "the fate of the society in the rule of law would stand reinforced only if the demolition take place as ordered by this Court." The court rejected the argument that the Supreme Court intended to save the illegal shops through layout changes.
🔒 For Members Only