PRAVIN BHIMRAO WADMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. The petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel.

(2.) In these proceedings which have been filed in public interest, the grievance of the Petitioner arises out of the failure of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ('PCMC') to take steps in accordance with law for demolition of an unauthorized structure. The Third Respondent is a municipal corporator while the Seventh Respondent is her spouse. The Eighth Respondent is the mother of the Seventh Respondent. The reasons why the PCMC has while ostensibly exercising its powers under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1996 and the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 failed to take any steps for the demolition of a structure for which admittedly there is no building permission, are not difficult to seek. Unfortunately, the PCMC, as the facts would reveal, has lent a willing hand to tolerate a brazen violation of law.

(3.) A completely unauthorized RCC structure admeasuring about 810 sq.mtrs. consisting of a ground floor and two upper floors has been constructed within the jurisdiction of PCMC on Survey No.6/8 PWD (CTS No.1691). A notice was issued to the Seventh Respondent under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 on 13 May 2008. No action was taken for five years thereafter. On 19 March 2013, a notice to show cause was issued to the Seventh Respondent under Section 260(1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. In his reply, the Seventh Respondent by a letter dated 6 April 2013 stated that the property is joint family property. The Seventh Respondent applied for regularization of the structure. The application was rejected on 26 April 2013. Again a fresh notice was issued on 16 May 2013. On 22 May 2013, the Seventh Respondent applied for building permission under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The building permissions department rejected the application for building permission and accordingly the Seventh Respondent was informed by a letter dated 15 July 2013. By this letter, the PCMC has required the Seventh Respondent, inter alia, to remove the existing structure. Initially by his letter dated 31 July 2013 the Seventh Respondent expressed readiness to demolish a portion of the building but even this was sought to be subsequently resiled from by a letter dated 28 July 2013 where it is stated that a portion of the building would be demolished after obtaining the building plan.