Regularisation Plea Can Be Entertained Only for Irregular, Not Illegal, Structures: HC

PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa rejected the plea of Abdul Linganmata, who sought the regularisation of his structure in Assolda. The panchayat, the director of panchayats, and the district court had all previously determined that Linganmata’s structure was newly constructed and illegal.

Linganmata challenged the district court’s decision before the high court. In its ruling, the high court reiterated that an application under the Regularisation Act can only be considered if the structure in question is irregular, not illegal.

Furthermore, it must have been constructed as an irregular structure before February 28, 2014, for the application to be entertained.

Justice Valmiki Menezes clarified that Linganmata’s structure was built in an orchard zone without obtaining the required land conversion or permissions. Consequently, it was deemed an illegal structure rather than an unauthorized irregular structure.

The court noted that the structure was constructed on a plot that had not been converted for non-agricultural use as mandated by the Land Revenue Code. Additionally, it lacked technical approval from the town planning department under the applicable building regulations.

Linganmata claimed he had purchased the property, which included an ancestral house and storeroom, and argued that these structures had existed for over 80 years.

He stated that he had been residing in the unauthorized structure since 2013 and had approached the panchayat seeking regularisation. He also requested a house number and no-objection certificates (NOCs) to obtain electricity and water connections.

However, in January 2018, the panchayat issued a notice declaring his structure unauthorized and newly constructed, ordering its demolition within seven days.

Linganmata appealed to the director of panchayats, but his appeal was dismissed, and the demolition order was upheld.

He then approached the district court, which also rejected his application, stating that there was no evidence of the structure’s existence in his sale deed. Furthermore, the structure was not depicted in the plan attached to the sale deed.

In its judgment, the high court emphasized that Section 3 of the Regularisation Act does not provide the authority with unrestricted power to regularise structures.

Instead, it only allows the authority to entertain applications that meet the specified conditions under the Act.