The Bombay High Court has held that illegal flat alterations cannot be tolerated merely because similar violations exist elsewhere. The Court clarified that, unless and until a clear regulatory framework is introduced, every construction or alteration made without permission required under existing law must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. The existence of similar unauthorised constructions elsewhere does not give protection to one illegal structure, but at the same time enforcement must be uniform and not selective.
Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to proceed with immediate demolition of the illegal and unauthorised construction carried out in respondent no. 5’s flat, including the sheds over the terraces and the unauthorised room, and respondent no. 5 was directed to vacate that illegal structure. The Court further directed the State to formulate appropriate legislation, rules, circulars, or guidelines dealing with: coverings over open terraces, installation of grills or similar protective structures on windows, terraces or open spaces, and the nature of alterations that individuals may carry out within authorised constructions or flats without obtaining prior permission.
The Court also directed the State and municipal corporations to consider creating an online portal through which individuals can intimate proposed alterations by uploading photographs, plans, and relevant details, so that the authority can determine whether prior permission is required.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata after examining the municipal affidavit and photographs on record, found that the open-to-sky terraces as originally constructed by the developer had indeed been unauthorisedly enclosed by respondent no. 5. The Court held that such unauthorised constructions could not be allowed to continue and deserved immediate removal. The Court also noted that the intervener had placed material before it showing that various other flats in the same society had similarly covered or enclosed balconies and terraces, and it was not the case of the municipal corporation that all or most of those structures were authorised.
A significant issue was with the broader civic problem behind such disputes. The Court observed that many flat owners install grills, lightweight sheds, terrace coverings, or make internal alterations depending on their needs, but there is no clear, economical, and accessible procedure for obtaining permission for such works. Because of this lack of clarity, citizens often proceed without permission. The Court clarified that this does not justify illegality, but it shows the urgent need for a transparent and workable regulatory mechanism.
Also Read Privacy Cannot Be a Cloak for Opacity: How the DPDP Act Weakens the Right to Information
The Court was also critical of enforcement delays. It pointed out that the petitioner’s complaint made in March 2019 was acted upon only in February 2021, nearly two years later. According to the Court, such delay strengthens the perception that unauthorised constructions can be carried out with impunity and that municipal corporations act only when compelled by courts. The High Court further stressed that the law cannot operate selectively. It said there cannot be two classes of citizens, those who obey the law and those who disregard it. Illegal constructions cannot be tolerated merely because many others have also committed similar violations. Uniform enforcement of municipal law is essential.
The Court also expressed concern that civil court status quo or injunction orders sometimes continue for years without early scrutiny of whether the construction is prima facie authorised. According to the Court, this may indirectly encourage unauthorised constructions. It added that despite long-standing Supreme Court directions, such illegalities continue, partly due to weak enforcement and sometimes ineffective representation of municipal authorities.
Briefly, the case arose from a dispute between two residents of Neel Sidhi Amarante, Kalamboli. The petitioner was residing on the 4th floor, directly above the flat of respondent no. 5 on the 3rd floor, and alleged that respondent no. 5 had carried out unauthorised alterations in his flat under the guise of renovation. These included enclosing open terraces with brick and masonry walls, covering terraces with tin sheets, and extending the bedroom by breaking partition walls, all allegedly without municipal permission. The petitioner claimed that these works caused nuisance and also affected the structural stability of the building. The petitioner stated that he first complained about the unauthorised work on 6 March 2019 and continued to pursue the matter with the society and the Panvel Municipal Corporation, but no effective action followed, which led him to file the writ petition.
The Panvel Municipal Corporation, in its affidavit, admitted that the open terraces appurtenant to respondent no. 5’s flat had been covered without obtaining permission and that the alterations were unauthorised. It also stated that it had demolished the unauthorised tin sheds on 25 February 2021. However, after that, respondent no. 5 sought permission for a temporary shed and filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, where an order of status quo was granted on 17 October 2022 and continued thereafter. The Corporation said it would take further action once that order was vacated. The subsequent purchaser of the flat sought intervention and argued that the alterations had been carried out by the earlier owner and that many other residents in the society had also covered terraces or installed grills, so he was being singled out unfairly.
