The court said such view will ensure that similar redevelopment related issues would not arise for such buildings.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to place on record details of regularisation of illegal structures granted in the past five years including number of garages regularised in Mumbai during the period.
The HC was hearing a plea on Wednesday which alleged that BMC was not recognising the area pertaining to a garage in a building in the redevelopment plan. The HC expressed concern that the BMC in large number of cases do not follow rules, resulting in “unwarranted litigation being contested at public costs” and the same required attention of higher authorities.
You’ve Read Your Free Stories For Now
Sign up and keep reading more stories that matter to you.
A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Aarti A Sathe was hearing a plea by Ramesh Dattatray Pathak, who argued he had occupied a garage for commercial use as an office and he would be entitled for permanent alternative accommodation in the redevelopment premises under such a category.
Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar and advocate Aseem Naphade submitted that the garage area, used commercially as an office, was required to be included in redevelopment plan under Regulation 33 (7) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) for Greater Mumbai, 2034. It observed that BMC was required to take appropriate view on the matter as many old buildings in Mumbai of the ‘earlier era’ had garages, which were later used for other purposes. The court said such view will ensure that similar redevelopment related issues would not arise for such buildings.
However, on December 9, BMC’s Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) rejected petitioner’s application and blamed Pathak for not seeking regularisation prior to redevelopment and recorded that the commercial use of garage was unauthorised and also ruled out post-facto approval or regularisation on payment of penalty and said same cannot be accepted.
The bench said the BMC’s order “completely overlooked the correct factual position on subject matter” observations passed in HC’s earlier orders. The court also observed there was nothing on record to show the BMC Commissioner had applied his mind to the facts of the case while approving the order.
“We are of the opinion that in the midst of development, after the building had been demolished, shifting the burden upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not applied for regularisation at the relevant time, which could have been then granted, prima facie is not a justified/reasonable approach on the part of the Executive Engineer. The Municipal Commissioner completely overlooked this position,” the HC observed.
Story continues below this ad
The court said it was “left with no alternative” but to direct the BMC to give details of regularisation granted to garages in the city and illegal structures regularised by BMC in the past five years.
“We are also constrained to observe that the BMC in a large number of cases do not adhere to the rules and the law, resulting in generation of unwarranted litigation, before this court being contested at public costs when there are glaring illegalities, which require far greater attention. Comparatively this is a very small case,” the HC said and posted further hearing to December 24.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
