Unauthorized construction cannot be protected through equitable relief under Article 227.

The petitioners purchased old Gram Panchayat House Nos. 460–462 situated on Gat No. 100 at Boisar under a registered sale deed dated 22 June 2023. After obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from the Village Panchayat, Boisar, they erected 54 tin sheds on the property.

The Tahsildar alleged that the structures had been erected without permission from the competent Planning Authority and issued notice to the petitioners on 17 July 2025. Following a hearing, the Tahsildar ordered the petitioners on 3 February 2026 to remove unauthorized development measuring 21.25 sq. metres within seven days, failing which the structures would be demolished.

The petitioners instituted a civil suit challenging the Tahsildar’s order as a nullity and sought an interim injunction restraining the authorities from acting upon it. The Trial Court rejected the injunction application, holding prima facie that the construction had been undertaken without the requisite Planning Authority’s permission and that due process had been followed.

The District Court dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, finding the construction unauthorized and observing that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”). The petitioners thereafter invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Tahsildar had lawful authority to initiate proceedings and pass an order under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the MRTP Act in respect of the unauthorized structures after MMRDA was appointed as the Special Planning Authority for the area.

Whether the District Collector’s earlier delegation of powers to the Tahsildar dated 31 March 2022 survived the subsequent appointment of CIDCO and MMRDA as Special Planning Authorities.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim protection against demolition notwithstanding that the structures were admittedly erected without permission and their application for regularization had been rejected.

Whether the High Court ought to exercise its corrective and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 against the concurrent refusal of interim relief by the Courts below.

The Court applied the MRTP Act, particularly Section 2(19), defining “Planning Authority” to include a Special Planning Authority; Section 40, empowering the State Government to appoint a Special Planning Authority; Section 18(1)(iii), requiring the Collector’s permission for development in specified areas and permitting delegation to an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar; Sections 52–54, concerning unauthorized development and its removal; Section 149, concerning the statutory bar relating to proceedings under the Act; and Section 151(3), permitting a Planning Authority to delegate its powers to an officer of the State Government subject to the statutory conditions.

The Court also applied the principle that delegated authority may continue where the subsequent legal regime does not invalidate or contradict the earlier delegation, relying by analogy on Section 24 of the General Clauses Act and Section 25 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904.

Under Article 227, the High Court exercises limited supervisory and corrective jurisdiction and does not act as a Court of first appeal; interference is warranted only for grave dereliction, perversity, or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, as stated in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181.

The Court further relied on State of Bombay v. Morarji Cooverji, 1958 SCC OnLine Bom 188, for the principle that a writ claimant must establish not only legal invalidity but also that justice lies on the claimant’s side, and on Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, and Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995, for the rule that unauthorized constructions cannot be protected, regularized judicially, or perpetuated on grounds of delay, expenditure, or administrative inaction.

The Court found it undisputed that the petitioners had erected 54 structures without permission from the competent Planning Authority. The Village Panchayat’s NOC could not substitute the statutory permission because the Panchayat was not a Planning Authority under the MRTP Act, and the petitioners’ application for regularization had also been rejected.

Although the original delegation by the Collector to the Tahsildar preceded the appointment of CIDCO and subsequently MMRDA as Special Planning Authorities, MMRDA had delegated its Special Planning Authority powers to the District Collectors under Section 151(3), subject to exercise in accordance with the prevailing operating procedure.

The Court held that this arrangement sufficiently revived or continued the Collector’s earlier delegation to the Tahsildar, particularly because Section 18(1)(iii) expressly permits delegation to an officer not below the rank of Tahsildar.

In any event, the Court held that even a possible doubt regarding the continued validity of the delegation would not justify interference under Article 227. The petitioners sought equitable interim protection for structures that were brazenly unauthorized and commercially used. Granting an injunction would effectively protect an illegality and undermine the rule of law.

Applying the strict approach mandated in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Kaniz Ahmed, the Court concluded that the Courts below had properly refused interim relief and had committed no jurisdictional or procedural error warranting supervisory correction.

The concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the District Court were not shown to suffer from any error warranting interference under Article 227.

The writ petition was dismissed, the Rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs. The petitioners’ oral application for continuation of ad-interim relief was also rejected.