Rejection of application for extension of time to demolish an unauthorized school building within a Blue Flood Line and green belt, citing lack of expeditious action and refusal to grant leniency.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
dss
3-cai 59.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2014 IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.207 OF 2010
Pratibha Mahila Pratishtan through its Director Sau. Jaishree Vijay Jagtap
Jaishree Vijay Jagtap .. Applicant vs. Smt. Jaishree S. Dange & ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Ajay S. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.V. Walavalkar, Senior Advocate I/b Mr. S.R. Ganbavale for Respondent No.2. Mr. A. B. Vagyani, AGP for State.
CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 5TH MAY 2014
P.C. :-
1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The
prayer in this application is for grant of extension of time granted to the applicant to vacate and remove the building under the order dated 4th October 2013.
2] In paragraph No. 7 of the order dated 4th October 2013, the admitted position recorded by this Court is that the construction of the school building made by the applicant (4th Respondent in the PIL) is in a green zone and no building permission was obtained before construction was carried out. In paragraph No.11 of the said judgment and order, it is pointed out that the construction of the
1/4
dss
3-cai 59.14
school has been made within the Blue Flood Line and in an area which forms a part of the green belt without any building permission and totally in violation of law. It will be necessary to quote what is observed in paragraph No. 11 of the said judgment and order.
“11. Insofar as the Fourth Respondent is concerned, the construction of the structure is a paradigm of the kind of illegalities that have taken place since the construction has been made within the Blue Flood Line and in an area which forms part of the green belt without any building permission and totally in violation of law. We find no justification in the contention of the Fourth Respondent that no action be proceeded against it because a large number of students have been admitted. Such illegalities are sought to be justified by adverting to the human aspects involved. Having due regard to the aforesaid position of which the Court cannot be oblivious, we have recorded the assurance of the counsel for the Fourth Respondent, on instructions, that all the trustees of the Fourth Respondent shall file their personal affidavits undertaking that the unauthorized construction shall be removed voluntarily and completely on or before 31 May 2014. We direct the Fourth Respondent to restore the site to its original condition to the satisfaction of MPCB on or before 31 May 2014. The affidavits containing undertakings to be filed by all the trustees shall also specify that all the costs, charges and expenses that may be required by the MPCB or any other agency for restoring the site to its original condition, shall be borne and met by the Fourth Respondent. MPCB shall for that purpose call upon the Fourth Respondent to place at its disposal such funds as may be necessary for taking suitable remedial measures to restore the environment. We also direct the PCMC to take due steps to ensure, in the event that the structure of the Fourth Respondent is not removed by 31 May 2014, the removal of the unauthorized structure. The Commissioner of Police shall render all necessary assistance to the PCMC for that purpose”. (underlines added)
2/4
dss
3-cai 59.14
3] In the application it is alleged that the applicant has entered
into an agreement with M/s. G.K. Associates in relation to a land admeasuring 1 Acre and 6 Guntas. However, no particulars of such agreement and even date thereof have been stated in the application. From Exh.-C, we find that the application for grant of building permission on the said land of M/s. G.K. Associates has been made by the applicant as late as on 25.4.2014.
4] The submission of the learned advocate appearing for the applicant is that the applicant will construct a new school building within one year and, therefore, time of one year be granted to vacate and demolish the illegal building.
5] The admitted position which is recorded in the order dated 4th October 2013 is that not only that the construction of the school is completely unauthorised, but it is within the Blue Flood Line of river Pavna. Moreover, the construction has been carried out in green belt. The argument that large number of students have been admitted in the school did not find favour with this Court as is clear from the paragraph No. 11 quoted above. Even the argument based on human aspects has been rejected by this Court and in fact on the basis of assurance of the applicant of filing undertaking of all the
3/4
dss
3-cai 59.14
trustees, the time was granted to the applicant till 31st May 2014 to demolish the building.
6] We cannot allow a school to be run in an illegal building constructed within the Blue Flood Line and in an area which forms part of the green belt. Moreover, we find that no expeditious steps have been taken by the applicant after the order dated 4th October 2013 was passed. Moreover, only on the specific representation made by the applicant that the unauthorised construction shall be voluntarily removed on or before 31st May 2014, this Court directed the Municipal Corporation not to take further steps till 31st May 2014.
7] Considering the aforesaid aspects, this is a case where no leniency can be shown to the applicant. The application is accordingly, rejected.
(M. S. SONAK, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)
Dinesh
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for an extension of time to vacate and remove an illegal school building constructed within a Blue Flood Line and green belt without permission.
Pratibha Mahila Pratishtan through its Director Sau. Jaishree Vijay Jagtap
Smt. Jaishree S. Dange
A. S. Oka
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
