Observing that a series of matters are coming to court related to illegal constructions as timely action against them are not being taken and “something fundamentally goes wrong” despite several orders, the Bombay High Court pulled up the Bhiwandi-Nizampur City Municipal Corporation (BNCMC) for “lawlessness”. The HC questioned why earnest and effective steps were not taken by the civic body to approach the civil court to vacate the status quo against a certain illegal construction in its area and said “the municipal corporation is still in a state of deep slumber”. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Aarti A Sathe on October 8 was hearing a plea by one Idris Abdul Hamid Shaikh filed in 2018, who claimed to be the owner of the land in question at Temghar in Bhiwandi, which comes under the BNCMC. Shaikh, through advocate Shivshankar D Patil, claimed illegal construction was undertaken on his land and no permission was taken from the BNCMC to put up such structures. The petitioner said that though repeated notices were issued by the BNCMC for the demolition of the suit structure, its officers did not complied with the notices. “We are informed that the status quo order was obtained in the said suit in regard to the illegal construction in the year 2016, and in our opinion with the blessings of the officers of the municipal corporation, which did not take any effective steps to vacate the status quo which continued to operate from 2016 till February 2025,” the bench noted. The HC noted that the respondent developer moved the court again in April this year with a fresh suit as the earlier one was dismissed and again sought “status quo” order from the court. “It is in these circumstances, the rank illegal construction put up without any permission whatsoever from the municipal corporation have continued to subsist and that too encroaching on the petitioners’ plot of land,” the HC noted. It directed the civic chief to inquire “as to who were the concerned officers at the relevant time who were under the official obligation to defend the said suit and as to why steps were not take to get the status quo vacated” and sought a report. “In the present case it appears that the municipal corporation is clearly shielding respondents as it is extremely surprising as to why only paper service is effected and no action was taken against the construction although the earlier suit filed by respondent was dismissed. The municipal corporation is still in a state of deep slumber, it has neither acted effectively nor is pursuing the action against these illegal constructions.” The court added that the “present case is a classic case as to how the officers of the municipal corporation are protecting the illegal constructions and certainly for extraneous reasons” and it was a “matter of routine affair for officers not to take action against illegal constructions” and the municipal machinery is activated only when proceedings are brought before the court. It raised concern that “timely actions against illegal constructions are not being taken” by the BNCMC, therefore series of matters are filed in the court. “Something still fundamentally goes wrong,” the HC said, adding that issue has “already gone out of the hand, however, it was never too late.” Referring to past judgments for action against illegal structures and encroachments, the bench said “there cannot be such lawlessness or no rule of law in compliance of the court orders”. The bench then directed the civic body to approach the civil court requesting for order on its plea to vacate the status quo order. The HC, while posting further hearing to October 15, also directed its registry to inquire as to why proceedings were not being take up and when orders would be passed in the matter.
