Facts: The Petitioners, claiming to be proprietors of shops constructed on a plot of land, filed a writ petition challenging a public notice issued by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Removal), Chembur, directing the removal of illegal constructions on C.T. Survey No.661, Taluka Kurla, Chedda Nagar. The Petitioners claimed their structures were constructed prior to 1960 and were protected, relying on an interim relief granted in a suit filed against the Union of India.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the public notice issued by the Deputy Collector and for other consequential reliefs.
Issue: Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition against a public notice for the removal of illegal structures, where the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any valid permission or sanction for the construction, and where the structures are deemed to be illegal encroachments on land owned by the State of Maharashtra?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the Petitioners' claims and refusing to interfere with the Deputy Collector's notice for removal of the illegal structures.
Reasoning: The Court found that the Petitioners failed to produce any document showing authorization or sanction for the construction of the structures. The Court emphasized that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act came into effect in 1888, requiring permission for erecting structures. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Anr. v/s. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. and Kaniz Ahmed v/s. Sabuddin & Ors., which held that unauthorized constructions cannot be encouraged and that courts should adopt a strict approach in dealing with illegal constructions. The Court stated, "The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity." The Court refused to show "empty sympathy" to the Petitioners, as it would be contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.