The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has issued an interim stay on the demolition of a prominent multi-storey building situated directly opposite Vidhan Bhavan in the Civil Lines area. This significant legal intervention came on Monday after the building's management presented a revised architectural plan before the court, prompting judicial consideration.
Court Directs Municipal Corporation to Respond
The division bench, comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta, has directed the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) to file its official reply regarding the newly submitted proposal within a strict timeframe of one week. This directive follows the civic body's initiation of demolition activities last Friday, acting upon a notice issued on January 13 that identified extensive unauthorized constructions.
Details of Unauthorized Construction
The NMC's demolition action targeted multiple violations across the building's structure. These included unauthorized constructions throughout the basement, several upper floors, and an additional service floor located below the first level. The court's interim relief has temporarily halted these demolition proceedings, providing a reprieve for the building management.
Advocate Gemini Kasat represented the Nagpur Municipal Corporation during the proceedings, presenting the civic body's position on the matter.
Background of the Public Interest Litigation
The case originates from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Vijay Babhare back in 2016. The petition raised serious concerns about alleged irregularities in the construction of the multi-storey structure and highlighted potential security risks to both Vidhan Bhavan and the nearby Reserve Bank of India buildings. The petitioner had specifically sought the building's demolition due to these concerns.
Judicial Scrutiny of Delayed Action
During the hearing, the division bench carefully examined the civic body's earlier affidavit, which detailed the sequence of actions taken under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The court noted that a notice had declared the building's seventh floor completely unauthorized as early as 2004.
In a pointed observation, the bench questioned why no decisive action had been taken for nearly nine years after the matter attained finality in 2015. This judicial scrutiny underscores the prolonged nature of the legal proceedings and the delayed enforcement actions concerning the unauthorized constructions.
The interim stay represents a crucial development in this long-standing legal battle, balancing municipal enforcement authority with judicial oversight of urban development regulations. The court's decision to examine the revised architectural plan suggests openness to potential regularization while maintaining scrutiny over compliance with building regulations and security concerns.
