Bombay HC Slams Thane Municipal Corporation Over Illegal Constructions At Patlipada; Mulls Contempt Against Former Commissioners

Mumbai, Dec 04: The Bombay High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) and state authorities, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against former municipal commissioners and officers for making a “mockery” of court orders regarding the demolition of illegal structures in the Patlipada area of Thane since 2015.

Court says orders ignored for years

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Anil Joshi, noted that the authorities had made a “mockery of all orders that are passed from time to time” directing the demolition of hundreds of illegal constructions on what is alleged to be gairan (grazing) and forest land.

The PIL highlighted that the court had passed several orders between April 2014 and December 2015, directing the removal of the structures. However, the State has recently decided to develop a ‘Cluster Slum Scheme’ on the disputed plot.

Bench questions cluster scheme over forest land

The court severely questioned this decision, stating that as per a Supreme Court order, grazing or forest land cannot be used for any construction. The bench also expressed dismay at the State issuing a notification for the cluster scheme with a caveat that it would be subject to the final outcome of the PIL.

“What if tomorrow this notification is declared illegal? Look at the mess you will create?” the bench asked, adding that the authorities would have to pay compensation to people who put in their “hard earned money to buy houses”.

‘Mischief played’, petitioner alleges

Advocate Sriram Kulkarni, representing the petitioner, argued that structures on forest and gairan land cannot be protected, even under any new policy. He further contended that the declaration of the area as a slum in the records appeared to be a “mischief played” by someone to regularize the illegal constructions.

During the hearing, the court noted that neither the State nor the TMC had filed compliance affidavits on earlier demolition orders. The bench expressed its intent to hold the concerned officers accountable.

“Since 2015 there are orders. You said you will do it. Why should contempt action not just be initiated against your officers?” the bench asked the counsel representing the authorities.

Affidavit lacking compliance details irks court

The latest affidavit filed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, which mentioned a need to carry out a survey de novo (afresh), further irked the court. It said the affidavit contained “not a word” on compliance with past orders. “You are literally fooling the court,” it said, noting that repeated undertakings had gone unfulfilled.

The affidavit stated that out of 1,501 structures surveyed in 2015, 129 were constructed prior to 1995 and 81 between 1995 and 2000. It detailed the new Cluster Scheme regulation for the redevelopment of unauthorized structures, under which the structures in the PIL are now included.

Kulkarni pointed out that despite repeated extensions sought by authorities for surveys and demarcation, “there has been a systematic misuse of power”. He said, “When construction activity in forest land is not permitted, where is the question of structures prior to 1995 or 2000?”

Court seeks names of responsible officials

The court also raised serious doubts about how the land came to be shown as reserved for slum redevelopment in municipal records. “Someone has played a mischief,” the bench said, asking the tehsildar and collector to explain how a purported SRA entry appeared despite no declaration.

The court highlighted the gravity of inaction, stating, “Look at the injustice you will be doing to those who have purchased that property... Because of inaction by authorities, all this has happened.”

Despite the court asking the State and the TMC to make a statement that no third-party rights will be created on the land in question until further orders to prevent a “Pandora’s box” of more litigation, no such statement was made.

The bench asked that the TMC furnish the names and designations of the officers — including the former Municipal Commissioner and its officers — who were “at the helm at the relevant time” when the undertakings were given to the court.

TMC counsel Ram Apte submitted the names of former commissioner Sanjeev Jaiswal and assistant commissioner Maruti Gaikwad, who were in charge at the relevant time.

Also Watch:

He also informed the court that they had issued notices to 564 structures, but only 30 were demolished. Admitting that such inaction cannot be justified, Apte said: “We are now frantically searching the records.”

Next hearing

The HC has kept the matter next week for passing an interim order regarding issuing contempt notice to the authorities.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/