Contempt Plea Filed Against State as KDMC Fails to Demolish 65 Illegal Buildings in Kalya
Background of the Case
A contempt petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court alleging that the State government wilfully disobeyed a previous judicial order directing the demolition of 65 illegal buildings in the Kalyan–Dombivli region. The earlier order required the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC) to complete the demolition within three months and to coordinate with police authorities to relocate the occupants before carrying out the action.
The petitioner, Sandeep Pandurang Patil, an architect by profession, has argued that despite clear directions issued in November 2024, the KDMC and State authorities failed to comply, amounting to deliberate disobedience of court orders.
High Court’s Latest Directions
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, on November 20, directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit naming the owners and tenants of all 65 illegal buildings. The next hearing is scheduled for December 18.
Patil had earlier approached the court in October 2024, alleging that the respondents had failed to act on the court’s 2024 order. According to him, this inaction constitutes intentional disobedience and therefore qualifies as contempt of court.
Court’s Earlier Directives
In the earlier order issued in November 2024, the High Court passed multiple directives to the KDMC, the State government, and MahaRERA. These included:
-
Demolition of 65 identified illegal buildings.
-
Integration of the Building Plan Management System (BPMS) with the MahaRERA platform to ensure verification of genuineness of documents and approvals.
-
Uploading of commencement and occupation certificates within 48 hours of issuance to ensure transparency and public access.
These measures were intended to curb fraudulent practices by developers and strengthen regulatory oversight.
Origin of the Dispute: Fraudulent RERA Registrations
The petitioner first approached the court in 2021, alleging that developers were using forged KDMC documents to obtain RERA registrations and subsequently sell flats, shops, and apartments in illegal buildings.
Patil, being familiar with planning authorities such as KDMC, the Town Planning Department, and the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA), presented evidence indicating how forged approvals led to large-scale construction of illegal structures.
Attempts for Regularisation and the Court’s Stance
After the High Court’s 2024 order, several housing societies applied for regularisation of their buildings by offering to pay requisite penalties. Temporary protection was granted until February 2025.
However, after reviewing the requests, the KDMC rejected the regularisation proposals and asked residents to vacate the buildings. The court later confirmed that these structures were among the 65 illegal buildings already identified and reiterated that illegal constructions cannot be protected or legalised through judicial orders.
Administrative Inaction and Police Assistance
In his latest petition, Patil argued that while the KDMC issued a notice to the Thane Police Commissioner in July seeking police support to vacate illegal buildings, the civic body failed to take further steps.
According to the petition, the lack of police assistance and the KDMC’s repeated refusals to proceed with the demolition indicate absolute administrative inaction. The petition asserts that the authorities knowingly failed to comply with essential components of the court’s order, including:
-
Demolishing all illegal buildings.
-
Obtaining and providing police support for the eviction process.
-
Integrating BPMS with the MahaRERA portal.
-
Taking action against officials involved in or enabling illegal constructions.
Patil has requested the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the responsible authorities and compel them to file detailed affidavits explaining the reasons for ongoing non-compliance.
Statutes Relevant to the Case
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Sections applicable:
-
Section 2(b) – Defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court.
-
Section 12 – Empowers the court to punish individuals responsible for contempt.
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)
Relevant due to fraudulent registrations:
-
Section 3 – Mandatory registration of real estate projects.
-
Section 7 & 8 – Revocation of registration in cases of fraud or violation.
-
Section 14 & 31 – Protection of homebuyers and complaint mechanisms.
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act)
Relevant provisions:
-
Section 52 – Penalty for unauthorized constructions.
-
Section 53 – Power to issue demolition notices.
-
Section 54–56 – Enforcement of removal of unauthorized constructions.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
Regarding police assistance:
-
Section 151 & 154 – Duty of police to prevent cognisable offences and act upon complaints.
-
Section 129 & 130 – Power to disperse unlawful assemblies during eviction.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 226
Empowers High Courts to issue writs and directions to authorities for enforcement of legal rights and compliance with statutory duties.
Article 144
All authorities, civil and judicial, are obligated to act in aid of the orders of courts.
Article 300A
States that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law, making illegal constructions non-protectable.
Article 243W & 12th Schedule
Defines responsibilities of municipalities, including urban planning and regulation of land use.
Judicial Precedents Relevant to Illegal Construction and Contempt
Priyanka Estates International Pvt Ltd v. State of Assam (2010)
Held that illegal constructions cannot be regularised and must be demolished, even if innocent purchasers are affected.
Esha Ekta Apartments Coop Housing Society v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai (2013)
Supreme Court ruled that unauthorized constructions violate the rule of law and must be dealt with strictly.
Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2013)
Reaffirmed the strict stance against illegal constructions and criticised municipal inaction.
Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India (2012)
Held that failure of authorities to comply with court directions can attract contempt.
Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Mohan Lal (2010)
Emphasized obligations of planning authorities to prevent illegal constructions.
Conclusion
The contempt plea highlights severe administrative lapses, failure to enforce planning laws, and continued disregard for judicial mandates in the Kalyan–Dombivli region. The Bombay High Court’s intervention aims to ensure accountability, transparency, and regulatory compliance, especially in a case where fraudulent approvals and illegal constructions have affected numerous homebuyers.
The upcoming hearing will determine the extent of responsibility borne by KDMC, the State government, and police authorities for the continued delays. The case underscores the importance of strict urban governance and the judiciary’s role in enforcing the rule of law.

Comments
Post a Comment