Authorities need not wait for the judiciary’s directives to demolish constructions which are not authorized by the law, clarified the High Court
Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Friday rapped the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) authorities for inaction against illegal constructions on the Nag River bank. The High Court clarified that the authorities need not wait for the judiciary’s directives to demolish constructions which are not authorized by the law.
Today’s Rate
Saturday 23 Nov. 2024
A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Anil Pansare said “It is always open to them to take necessary action without waiting for the orders of the court.” The court was hearing a suo motu PIL based on various media reports highlighting the plight of the historic river that is now turned into nullah for dumping sewage. According to the High Court, several ancillary issues have arisen, and the pollution caused by the unauthorized constructions is one of them.
Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI) N Deshpande informed the court that the project for pollution abatement was proposed under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) for Rs 2,117.56 crore. The expenditure is to be shared on a 60:25:15 basis between the Government of India, the State of Maharashtra and the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
While referring to HC’s order of January 19, where NMC was told to remove unauthorized constructions, slums and human settlements on the river bank, its tributaries and other nullahs, NMC counsel Puranik pointed out that there is no official definition of river bank, but the ‘Maharashtra Irrigation Act, 1976’, defines ‘embankment’.
The Division Bench said that regarding the directives for demolition, we had clarified on January 19 that the steps to be taken by the authorities would be as per the procedure established by law. Our order cannot be considered as a permission to the authorities to bypass the provisions of law. Since the order is in relation to the unauthorized constructions on the river banks, it is necessary to clarify the phrase so that the authorities have clarity as regards the directives,” the judges said.
Amicus curiae Nikhil Padhye then assured to assist in explaining the definition of ‘river bank’ and to bring clarity for the area within which HC’s demolition orders can be implemented. “There is a concept of ‘blue line’ and ‘red line’. The demolitions, which are contemplated, should be the ones contributing to the pollution,” he said, while adding that a note in this regard would be placed before HC in the next hearing on June 8.
The Assistant Solicitor General of India informed that Nag River’s rejuvenation proposal was placed before the Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA) in March where it is pending. Amicus curiae and respondents counsels, including government pleader Ketki Joshi and NMC counsel Puranik informed that if this project is undertaken, various aspects regarding pollution of the river can be effectively addressed.
“It appears that the project involves laying of new sewage lines and relaying existing ones, which will substantially reduce the pollution due to the sewage in the river. Since, it is informed that the project is already prepared and placed for consideration before the CCEA, it would be appropriate to await the decision,” the judges said.
