High Court
Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Wednesday stated that no sympathy be shown to illegal structures and once it is found to be illegal, the violator cannot be allowed to take advantage of it. If such contention is allowed, then each unit holder will extend its area by erecting illegal structures in the front and the rear side of his/her structure.
The High Court single bench Judge Justice B P Deshpande stated this while hearing civil application and miscellaneous civil application filed by John Dias of Miramar, challenging the order of the Secretary (Urban Development) who had dismissed his appeal regarding demolition of alleged illegal structure.
Following a complaint by one Albert Dias of Miramar regarding illegal construction carried out by the petitioner, the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) commissioner issued a demolition order on May 26, 2020. During the inspection, four structures were found to be illegal and without any permission.
However, John Dias filed an appeal before the Secretary (Urban Development), who is also the appellate authority but it was dismissed on December 27, 2022.
The Secretary stated that illegal structures built in violation of the rules and regulations must be demolished and no sympathy be shown to such violation.
The petitioner had admitted that there were minor deviations and in fact the vegetable stall, existing in front of his garage was removed.
He said that the front and back protection was erected 30 years back, and it was only for the purpose of protection of the said premises, which had been now allotted to the petitioner during the inventory proceedings.
He also said that regularisation of these minor deviations/structures was already filed and such application was pending. Further no prejudice was going to cause to the respondent since such structures were only for the purpose of protecting the things.
Additional government advocate Sulekha Kamat informed the Court that application for regularisation of the said structure was rejected on two occasions. She said that the illegal structures were erected without any permission and such structures need to be razed.
Representing Albert Dias, Adv Jatin Ramaiya told the Court that the house was initially constructed by their parents and there were four apartments along with one garage. He said that though the petitioner had obtained permission to operate the restaurant, he was not entitled to extend the front and back portion of the flat/apartment by erecting a shed as the property/land was for the common use of all the co-owners.
Justice Deshpande observed, “It is no doubt true that such an extension covers a small area of around two to three square metres. However, the question here is not of the small area, but of the legality of such structures. When notices were issued to the petitioner, he should have immediately removed such structures. However, he tried to justify it by showing that the structures are used for storing the material. The front and the rear side extensions clearly goes to show that such extensions are illegal and therefore, there is no justification that could be accepted for and on behalf of the petitioner to retain it.”
