Mumbai: Observing that now-a-days flat owners “commonly” carry out alterations to cover open terraces or modify residential premises, the Bombay High Court this week directed Maharashtra government to come up with comprehensive guidelines to specify the types of permissible alterations in individual flats or buildings.“There cannot be two classes of citizens: those who obey the law and those who openly disregard it. Nor can the law be enforced selectively against only those whose violations are reported, while other illegalities are allowed to continue merely because no objections have been raised,’’ the HC division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata observed in a July 16 ruling.“Large-scale unauthorised constructions cannot be permitted to continue merely because similar illegalities have been committed by several persons,’’ the bench said, while directing Panvel Municipal Corporation (PMC) to order immediate demolition of an illegal enclosure of open-to-sky terraces and an 800 sq ft illegal room constructed in a Kalamboli building.HC said it hears many cases of illegal constructions within flats, and “in many cases,’’ they continue either due to civic inaction or “apparent official acquiescence’’. “This is indeed a regrettable state of affairs,’’ said the bench, and asked why should a law-abiding citizen comply with rules when “unabashed’’ illegalities “continue unabated” due to ineffective action and is “also facilitated” by status quo orders from civil courts.In 2024, a petition before the HC sought demolition of the illegal enclosure and constructions by a flat owner in his flat “under the garb of renovations’’, a floor below the petitioner’s. These unauthorised constructions, which included breaking down walls and enclosing open space sans any permission from civic authorities, have an adverse impact on structural stability of the building, the petitioner argued, adding that no action was taken by the managing committee of the housing society for reasons best known to them despite complaints since 2019.The civic body admitted that the enclosure of open terraces were unauthorised and were demolished in 2021, following which the flat owner sought permission and erected a temporary shed and also obtained a status quo order from a trial court in October 2022.The flat owner said the alterations were made by previous flat owner and hence he is unaware of their legal status, but added that “most people’’ covered the terraces and he was “being singled out unfairly.’’The HC said often now a days, flat owners install protective grills, sheds or cover open terraces or alter partitions with wooden or gypsum sheets. When alterations are done before Occupancy Certificate is granted, it causes delay and litigation with builders, said the bench adding, “ There appears to be no clear or readily accessible and economical procedure governing the grant of permission for such works.’’In the absence of clear guidelines and any inexpensive or accessible process to obtain permission, citizens opt for the easier course of unauthorised alterations, the HC observed. “This cannot and does not justify the illegality, but it highlights the need for a transparent and workable regulatory mechanism,’’ the judgment authored by Justice Gadkari said.The case revealed several such alterations in the Kalamboli building as pointed out, said HC.The HC said when framed, the “regulatory framework must distinguish between alterations, which do not affect the structural stability or safety of the building and alterations capable of structurally weakening the building, endangering its occupants.”The HC, however, directed that “law must operate equally against all persons. Unless and until an appropriate regulatory framework is introduced, every construction or alteration carried out without the permission required by the existing law must be dealt with in accordance with law.’’While directing action against one flat, HC directed PMC to examine and take appropriate action against all similar unauthorised constructions it identified. “Municipal law must be applied uniformly and equally to all concerned,’’ the HC directed.
