{"id":295887,"date":"2023-07-03T18:30:58","date_gmt":"2023-07-03T13:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=295887"},"modified":"2023-07-07T17:37:42","modified_gmt":"2023-07-07T12:07:42","slug":"regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/b> In a batch of petitions under Article 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a> pertaining to construction raised in the premises of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (\u2018APMC\u2019) and orders of demolition\/removal passed by the Municipal Corporation, Nitin W. Sambre and S.G. Chapalgaonkar<\/b>*, JJ. refused to interfere with the said order and directed the authorities to take necessary steps for removal of illegal, unauthorized construction\/encroachments raised in area of open spaces earmarked in sanctioned lay out plan.<\/p>\n

The instant batch of petitions were filed by APMC as well as individual lease holders. A proposal made by APMC for regularization of unauthorized construction was refused by the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation through order dated 12-07-2018. The same was assailed by the Minister, Urban Development Department, Maharashtra State and impugned by APMC in the instant petition.<\/p>\n

APMC contended to have been established under Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, owns and possesses some of the plots and constructed a principal market yard on the same. The licensed traders of the market committee were carrying out trading activities on the said premises. A resolution was passed for construction of shops and the District Deputy Registrar granted permission to the market committee to lease out said plots to traders and allotment letters were issued accordingly for a period of 21 years.<\/p>\n

The said construction was raised without permission of planning authority in the area specifically earmarked as open space in Sanctioned layout plan for APMC and town planning scheme. A complaint was made to Municipal Corporation on 26-09-2017 alleging illegal construction raised by APMC. On 30-06-2018, the market committee submitted a proposal to Municipal Corporation seeking regularization of construction. The same was rejected on 21-07-2018 by the Deputy Commissioner of Municipal Corporation while issuing further directions to remove the said illegal construction.<\/p>\n

When the market committee approached the Minister for Urban Development against the said order invoking provisions of Section 56(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (\u2018MRTP Act\u2019) and the appeal was rejected with the observation that the said construction was raised on open space earmarked in the layout plan.<\/p>\n

Regarding rejection of appeal before the Minister for Urban Development Department on the ground that provision of Section 56(2) has no application on instant case, the Court agreed that such construction could only be dealt with in terms of Section 52, 53 and 54 of the MRTP Act read with Section 260(1)(2) and 478 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. It further explained that \u201cSection 56 comes into play when planning Authority intends to discontinue authorized use of land or building in interest of proper planning and issues such direction. Aggrieved authorized user can invoke appellate remedy in terms of Section 56(2) of MRTP Act.\u201d The Court held that the regularization of unauthorized construction raised on open space was beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act and the notice issued by Municipal Corporation on 21-07-2018 was in tune with the provisions of MRTP Act and Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that no provision enables regularization of construction raised on open spaces earmarked in development plan or Town Planning Scheme. The Court also pointed at the APMC’s attempt to move another proposal on 16-07-2018 before Municipal Corporation for for shifting of open spaces earmarked in sanctioned layout plan. The Court also found the notice issued by Municipal Corporation on 21-07-2018 was in tune with the provisions of MRTP Act read with Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act.<\/p>\n

The Court refused to accept APMC’s contention that the market committee is deemed to be local authority and not susceptible to the rigors of the MRTP Act; or the Municipal Corporation\/Planning Authority has no jurisdiction to monitor the construction within its area as per Section 12(2) of APMC Act. It further relied on Goroba<\/i> v. State of Maharashtra<\/i>, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7264<\/a> and concluded that no construction could have been raised by APMC on the plot earmarked as open space as per sanctioned layout plan, and that APMC could not plead immunity from obtaining necessary construction permission under Planning Law.<\/p>\n

The Court found the Municipal Corporation justified in directing removal of unauthorized construction and pointed out the APMC’s failure to justify their case for Court’s interference under Article 226<\/a> and 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The traders\/lease holders running their business in the said premises complained of not being heard by the Municipal Corporation and notices only being served to APMC, the Court clarified that they could not have independent right to be heard while they were claiming through APMC and occupying illegal and unauthorized construction. In addition, lease holders of the APMC would not have independent right to continue their possession and occupation of illegal\/unauthorized construction.<\/p>\n

In the petition filed by Ahmednagar Vegetables and fruit Commission Agents Association seeking writ of mandamus against the authorities to remove encroachments and illegal constructions and restore the open space, parking space, public utilities and service road space in the said premises, the Court directed Municipal Corporation to take necessary steps for removal of illegal, unauthorized construction\/encroachments raised in area of open spaces earmarked in sanctioned lay out plan for APMC in pursuance of notices already served u\/s 52, 53, 54 of MRTP Act read with section 260(1)(2) and 478 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act and submit a compliance report within 3 months.<\/p>\n

The Court dismissed the petitions by APMC and traders\/lease holders for regularization of unauthorized construction. The Court extended the interim protection already granted to the lease holders for a period of 8 weeks enabling them to avail appropriate remedies.<\/p>\n

[Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Urban Development Department of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1325<\/a>, decided on 30-06-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Judgment by: Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For Petitioners: Senior Counsel Sanjeev Deshpande, Advocate V.H. Dighe, Advocate Sanjay N. Gaikwad, Advocate Z.H. Farooqui, Advocate N.V. Gaware, Advocate G.K. Naik Thigle;<\/p>\n

For Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader P.K. Lakhotiya, Advocate K.N. Lokhande, Additional Government Pleaders K.N. Lokhande, Senior Counsel Sanjeev Deshpande, Advocate Pramod S. Gaikwad, Advocate R.B. Narvade Patil.<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court observed that no provision enables regularization of construction raised on open spaces earmarked in development plan or Town Planning Scheme.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67513,"featured_media":293501,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[43514,2569,58976,58975,3621,58977],"class_list":["post-295887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-apmc","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-maharashtra-municipal-corporations-act","tag-mrtp-act","tag-municipal_corporation","tag-unauthorized-construction"],"yoast_head":"\nRegularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court refused regularization of unauthorized construction by APMC holding it beyond the purview of MRTP Act Section 56.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court refused regularization of unauthorized construction by APMC holding it beyond the purview of MRTP Act Section 56.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-03T13:00:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-07-07T12:07:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ridhi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ridhi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/\",\"name\":\"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-03T13:00:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-07-07T12:07:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court refused regularization of unauthorized construction by APMC holding it beyond the purview of MRTP Act Section 56.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"bombay high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea\",\"name\":\"Ridhi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ridhi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay HC | SCC Blog","description":"Bombay High Court refused regularization of unauthorized construction by APMC holding it beyond the purview of MRTP Act Section 56.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court","og_description":"Bombay High Court refused regularization of unauthorized construction by APMC holding it beyond the purview of MRTP Act Section 56.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-07-03T13:00:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-07-07T12:07:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ridhi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ridhi","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/","name":"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-07-03T13:00:58+00:00","dateModified":"2023-07-07T12:07:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea"},"description":"Bombay High Court refused regularization of unauthorized construction by APMC holding it beyond the purview of MRTP Act Section 56.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"bombay high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/03\/regularization-unauthorized-construction-beyond-purview-section-56-mrtp-act-bombay-high-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Regularization of unauthorized construction beyond the purview of Section 56 of MRTP Act: Bombay High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea","name":"Ridhi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ridhi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":325158,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/26\/bombay-hc-directs-mcgm-to-follow-mrtp-provisions-allows-owner-church-petition-regarding-land-reserved-for-public-purposes\/","url_meta":{"origin":295887,"position":0},"title":"[Land Acquisition] Bombay HC directs Municipal Corporation to follow MRTP Act to acquire church\u2019s land reserved for public purposes","author":"Editor","date":"June 26, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court stated that until the Municipal Corporation resorted to appropriate procedure in law to acquire the disputed land, it should not disturb the peaceful possession of the Church in any manner whatsoever.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213865,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/23\/section-441e-of-the-maharasthra-municipal-council-act-creates-independent-liability-for-unauthorised-construction-de-hors-criminal-action\/","url_meta":{"origin":295887,"position":1},"title":"Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act creates independent liability for unauthorised construction de hors criminal action","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case where a Municipal Councillor was disqualified under Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 after his wife carried out unauthorized constructions, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ held, \u201cSection 44(1)(e) creates an independent liability or\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298653,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/05\/premature-petition-bombay-high-court-dismisses-challenge-mahalunge-maan-t-p-scheme\/","url_meta":{"origin":295887,"position":2},"title":"Bombay High Court dismisses challenge against Mahalunge-Maan Town Planning Scheme by calling it as a \u2018premature petition’","author":"Ridhi","date":"August 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The 55 petitioners in the instant matter claimed that they were denied compensation of lands acquired for public purposes.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299261,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/bom-hc-allows-remedy-of-appeal-section406-mmcact\/","url_meta":{"origin":295887,"position":3},"title":"Assailing vires of a statutory provision does not oblige Court to examine and entertain petitions: Bombay High Court","author":"Ridhi","date":"August 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 406 of MMC Act assailing the impugned assessment orders within 4 weeks, to be adjudicated by appellate authority on merits.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358813,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/bombay-hc-dismisses-pil-on-mobile-tower-health-hazards\/","url_meta":{"origin":295887,"position":4},"title":"Bombay High Court dismisses Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana\u2019s PIL alleging health hazards from telecommunication (mobile) towers","author":"Editor","date":"September 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court further noted that the new statutory framework under Telecommunications Act, 2023 and Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, now governs the installation, operation and maintenance of telecommunication towers.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"mobile tower health hazard","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/bom-222.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/bom-222.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/bom-222.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/bom-222.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294496,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/13\/illegal-transportation-of-animals-bombay-high-court-refuses-custody-cattle-owners\/","url_meta":{"origin":295887,"position":5},"title":"\u201cAnimals cannot speak, but they have emotions and feelings akin to humans\u201d; Bombay High Court refuses custody of seized cattle to owners","author":"Ridhi","date":"June 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court opined that while deciding such matters, primary consideration must be the welfare and maintenance of such animals.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295887","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67513"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=295887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/295887\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=295887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=295887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=295887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}