Bombay HC Orders Demolition of Unauthorised Flat Alterations, Directs Maharashtra to Frame Terrace and Grill Permission Rules

Bombay High Court ordered Panvel Municipal Corporation to demolish unauthorised terrace enclosures and an 800 sq ft illegal room, and directed Maharashtra to create a clear regulatory framework for flat alterations.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, on 13 July 2026 directed the Panvel Municipal Corporation to immediately demolish unauthorised constructions in a flat at Neel Sidhi Amarante, Sector 9E, Kalamboli. The constructions included brick and masonry terrace enclosures and an illegal room of approximately 800 sq ft. Going beyond the individual dispute, the Bench called out the Panvel Municipal Corporation's prolonged inaction, dismissed a civil suit that had shielded the constructions behind a years-old status-quo order, and directed the State of Maharashtra to formulate rules governing permissible alterations inside flats and buildings across the State.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Petitioner Ravindra Kini has been residing in flat No. 18/403 on the fourth floor of Building No. 18 at Neel Sidhi Amarante since 2016. Respondent No. 5, Maksood Patel, occupied flat No. 303 on the third floor, directly below Kini's flat.

Kini alleged that Patel, under the guise of renovation, erected permanent brick and masonry walls in the balcony, covered open terraces with tin sheets, and extended a bedroom by breaking partition walls — all without obtaining permission from the Panvel Municipal Corporation. Kini first complained to the Society's office-bearers and to the PMC on 6 March 2019. Getting no response, he filed Writ Petition No. 8980 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the illegal constructions.

During the proceedings, a subsequent purchaser of Patel's flat applied for intervention, submitting that the alterations had been made by the earlier owner and that the applicant was unaware of their unauthorised nature. The intervenor also placed on record a communication to the PMC listing several other flats in the society where balconies and terraces had been similarly enclosed.

What the PMC's Own Affidavit Admitted

The PMC filed an affidavit through its Ward Officer dated 30 July 2024. The affidavit admitted that the open terraces appurtenant to Respondent No. 5's flat had been covered without PMC permission and that the alterations were therefore unauthorised.

The PMC's counsel told the court that PMC had in fact demolished the unauthorised tin sheds — measuring 44 ft x 16 ft — on 25 February 2021. However, Respondent No. 5 then applied for permission to erect a temporary shed and simultaneously filed R.C.S. No. 311 of 2022 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, seeking a declaration and injunction restraining the PMC from demolishing the temporary shed. The trial court granted a status-quo order on 17 October 2022, which was extended repeatedly. The PMC's counsel submitted that the corporation would take action as soon as that order was vacated.

The Bench found that the complaint lodged in March 2019 had been acted upon only in February 2021 — almost two years later. It described this as reinforcing the perception that unauthorised constructions may be carried out with impunity.

How the Bench Reasoned

Examining the PMC's affidavit and photographs on record, the Bench found that the open-to-sky terraces as originally constructed by the developer had been unauthorisedly enclosed. The judgment states plainly: “The continued existence of such unauthorised constructions cannot be countenanced.”

The intervenor's argument that others in the society had made similar enclosures did not persuade the court. The Bench held that large-scale unauthorised constructions cannot be permitted merely because similar illegalities have been committed by several persons. It added that the law must operate equally against all, and that there cannot be two classes of citizens — those who obey the law and those who openly disregard it.

On the civil suit and status-quo orders, the Bench was direct. It observed that civil courts granting status-quo or injunctions without promptly examining whether a construction is prima facie authorised, and then continuing such orders for years, may indirectly encourage unauthorised constructions. Invoking its powers under Article 226 and relying on three Supreme Court decisions — K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Others reported in (1974) 2 SCC 506, Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, and Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 995 — the Division Bench dismissed R.C.S. No. 311 of 2022 and set aside all interim orders passed in that suit.

The Bench also examined why unauthorised alterations are so widespread. It identified two structural problems. First, online applications to Municipal Corporations ordinarily require submission through an Architect, and the professional and procedural expenses can be disproportionate to the cost or nature of minor alterations. Second, there is no clear, readily accessible or economical procedure governing permission for such works. The Bench was careful to note that neither factor excuses non-compliance with the law, but that both highlight the need for a transparent and workable regulatory mechanism.

The judgment noted that the perception that alterations can be carried out first and regularised later when complaints arise is, in the court's words, “not entirely unfounded,” given that the present record itself revealed multiple similar constructions within the same society complex.

Directions on Uniform Enforcement Across the Society

Since the intervenor's affidavit identified several other flats in the society with similar balcony and terrace coverings, the Bench directed the PMC to issue notices to all concerned flat owners, requiring them to furnish photographs and relevant documents. The PMC must examine whether each covering is permissible and take appropriate action against every unauthorised one. This exercise must be completed within six months from the date of the order.

The Bench was explicit that uniformity in enforcement is essential. While directing action against Respondent No. 5, it simultaneously required the PMC to act against all similar unauthorised constructions identified in the affidavit.

Directions to the State of Maharashtra

Beyond the immediate dispute, the Division Bench directed the State to formulate legislation, rules, circulars or guidelines covering at least three categories of works:

• Coverings over open terraces.
• Installation of grills or similar protective structures on windows, terraces or open spaces.
• Alterations permissible inside authorised constructions or flats without prior permission from the Municipal Corporation.

The Bench characterised these categories as illustrative, leaving the State free to add further categories. It also stated that any regulatory framework must distinguish between alterations that do not affect structural stability and those capable of structurally weakening a building and endangering occupants.

Separately, the court directed the State and Municipal Corporations to consider establishing an online portal through which individuals could notify the concerned authority of proposed alterations by uploading photographs, plans and relevant particulars. The authority would then determine whether the works are permissible. The Bench specified that the portal should not become a tool of harassment for corporation officers and that certifications, along with photographs, should be completed within a prescribed time limit. Each certificate must carry a unique authorisation or verification code for authenticity and transparency.

The Registrar (Judicial-II) was directed to communicate the order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department, and to Municipal Corporations, for the necessary steps to formulate the guidelines.

Order

The Writ Petition was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The PMC and Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to order immediate demolition of the unauthorised constructions carried out by Respondent No. 5, comprising a shed over the terrace facing the road, a shed over the rear terrace, and the illegal room of approximately 800 sq ft. Respondent No. 5 is also directed to immediately vacate the illegal and unauthorised room.

R.C.S. No. 311 of 2022 filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel is dismissed and all interim orders in that suit are set aside. The Registry is directed to communicate the judgment to the concerned learned Judge within one week of the judgment being uploaded on the Bombay High Court website.

The PMC must complete its notice-and-examination exercise regarding other identified unauthorised constructions in the society within six months. The matter is listed on 15 January 2027 for compliance. The Interim Application No. 3556 of 2026 does not survive the disposal of the Writ Petition and is accordingly disposed of.