#illegal construction

Bombay High Court dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 after finding the petitioner misrepresented a hotel as a residential property and suppressed statutory permissions. The court invoked the principles of 'fraud on court' and judicial estoppel, reinforcing that litigants cannot seek equitable relief through misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.

Bombay High Court rules that fraudulently obtained building permissions are null and void, barring regularisation even for high-value projects. The judgment reinforces that unauthorised constructions-regardless of investment or completion-must be demolished to prevent environmental and urban planning violations, aligning with Supreme Court precedent on zero tolerance for illegal developments.

NGT Western Zone rejects pre-1991 existence claims and forged documents, affirming demolition of eight illegal commercial structures in CRZ-III. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with Coastal Regulation Zone norms, impacting coastal development and environmental enforcement.

NGT Western Zone rules that demolition orders under the CRZ Notification 2011 are invalid if structures lie outside designated CRZ boundaries, even if adjacent to illegal constructions. The tribunal emphasized adherence to natural justice, quashing orders that failed to consider pre-1991 existence proofs or provide reasoned decisions. The ruling sets a precedent for territorial jurisdiction limits in coastal regulation enforcement.

Calcutta HC rules that a municipal corporation cannot evade its statutory duty to remove illegal constructions obstructing a citizen's right to light and air merely because an appeal is pending without a stay. The court directed KMC to act within four weeks, reinforcing that administrative inaction violates fundamental property rights.

Bombay High Court holds that illegal structures may not be demolished pending appeal if appellant deposits monthly sums, balancing equity and procedural delay. Key precedent for municipal enforcement cases.

The High Court of Telangana holds that authorities must act promptly on illegal encroachments on public land, failing which judicial intervention is warranted under Article 226.

Bombay High Court holds that owners of illegal mezzanine floors must deposit ₹20 lakhs to stay demolition, rejecting delay tactics under Section 351 of MMC Act.

The Rajasthan High Court holds that voluntary demolition of illegal construction does not absolve violators of costs; deterrence remains essential under building bye-laws.

Bombay High Court holds that unauthorized constructions cannot be protected by delay, administrative inaction, or investment costs. Strict compliance with building regulations is non-negotiable.