Dinesh Kamath's Editorial (Heart-breaking judgment) that was published in Newsband

Heart-breaking judgment

Heritage building compound at Kharghar in Navi Mumbai are likely to be pulled down soon, with the Bombay high court refusing to rescue buyers of these unauthorized flats and shops.  The court said that the buyers’ individual rights and interests are subservient to the concerns for public health and safety. The court made it clear that if people purchase flats without bothering to make inquiries and seeking details of the construction site, then they are to blame.

The judges said the buyers can approach civil or criminal courts if  they want to pursue their individual rights, but they cannot ask the  court to force the planning authority to regularize unauthorised and blatantly illegal constructions since that will make a mockery of the rule of  law.

Disposing of a clutch of petitions seeking regularization of illegal floors in a building at Navi Mumbai, the Bombay High Court has cautioned the flat buyers to verify properties they intend to buy before purchasing them and refrain from approaching the courts to seek redressal. The bench held that although flat buyers may be aggrieved but their interests cannot override those of the members of public at large.

The judges said that in this era, where science and technology have advanced to a great extent and where enactments such as ‘Right to Information Act’ are in place, it is not unreasonable to expect that the flat purchasers should avail of the same and seek appropriate and relevant details of the construction before booking and purchasing flats in large scale building projects. According to them, if the flat buyers are  carried away by the brochure and the public advertisements and do not  make such inquiries, then, they cannot turn around and seek assistance  of the Courts.

However, the justices suggested the aggrieved persons to make use of  the civil and penal laws to redress their grievances. They said that doors of civil and criminal courts are open to them.

The judges made it clear that mere granting of permission for water connection, electricity supply or NOC would not mean that the Planning Authority (CIDCO) should regularize irregular construction over and above the permissible construction.

So it is the buyers of these flats who are the losers. For some of the buyers, the money they spent on these flats is their life-time savings. Who’ll do justice to them? Isn’t it the duty of the court to consider such human factors behind this case and accordingly give the judgment? Other questions: Why did CIDCO allow such illegal construction to come up in the first place? Why should the flat-buyers suffer due to CIDCO’s negligence? Isn’t it the duty of CIDCO to pay them compensation for the loss they suffered owing to CIDCO’s negligence? The court should have considered all these factors too before straight away giving judgment that was heart-breaking for poor buyers of the flats.