Bombay HC Dismisses Encroachers' Plea, Says Granting Relief Would Reward Illegality

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has reiterated that the law cannot reward illegality, especially in cases involving encroachment on government land. 

A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna on Friday  dismissed a petition filed by Sandesh Lavnde and three others, challenging the demolition of their structures in Laxman Bhandari Chawl, Kandivali West on April 9, 2021. The structures demolished were on an area officially classified as reserved forest and falling within a 50-meter mangrove buffer zone.

The bench expressed concern over the “deep-rooted menace” of illegal slums and unauthorized constructions on public land. It underlined that such encroachments not only violate environmental protections but also strain public resources. The court made it clear that granting relief to illegal occupants would effectively amount to rewarding unlawful conduct—a precedent the judiciary cannot allow.

Advocate Ronita Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioners, argued that her clients were ‘protected occupiers’ under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and thus entitled to rehabilitation. She referred to two key government resolutions (GRs) dated May 16, 2015, and May 16, 2018. The former promises free housing for slum dwellers occupying structures before January 1, 2000, while the latter extends benefits—on payment of charges—to those residing there between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2011.

Calling the demolition “illegal” and a “flagrant violation” of statutory protections, Bhattacharya urged the court to direct State to provide immediate alternative accommodation, especially with the monsoon approaching. She also claimed the demolition had taken place despite a possible order for status quo in a related case.

State’s advocate, Uma Palsuledesai, opposed the plea, terming it “misconceived.” She maintained that the petitioners were repeated encroachers who had illegally built homes within a protected forest and mangrove buffer zone—areas explicitly excluded from the Slums Act by Section 3Z-6.

According to the State, the structures had been demolished earlier as well, and an FIR had even been registered when the petitioners attempted to rebuild. Palsuledesai accused them of suppressing critical facts and failing to approach the court with “clean hands.” She asserted that the area was officially recorded as reserved forest land, and that all due procedures—such as issuing public notices and verifying documents—had been duly followed.

Rejecting the petition, the court held that the petitioners did not qualify as ‘eligible slum dwellers’ under the Slums Act, since the land had never been notified as a slum area. It also ruled that the GRs cited by the petitioners had no applicability in protected forest and mangrove zones.

The bench noted that the petitioners “failed to establish any legal right, much less a fundamental right,” and said granting any relief would “tantamount to a premium on illegality which the law would never permit.” Although it refrained from imposing costs, the court termed the petition “an abuse of process of law,” underlining the need for honesty and transparency in litigation.