Paramhansa Ramakrishna Mouni Baba Sansthan v. State of Maharashtra - Land Use and Construction

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Paramhansa Ramakrishna Mouni Baba ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Anil S. Kilor

Bench: Anil S. Kilor

935 wp 7135-2022.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7135/2022

Paramhansa Ramakrishna Mouni Baba Sansthan, Chikhli, district Buldhana through
its Trustee Shri Aatmaram s/o Parasram Deshmane Vs. State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders

                         Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate a/w Shri R.S. Kalangiwale, Advocate for petitioner
                         Ms K.P. Marpakwar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State

                                        CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE  : 10.03.2026

1.            By way of present writ petition, under [Article 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) of
                                         the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for
                                         quashing and setting aside the Government order dated
                                         10.11.1997 and the consequent communications dated
                                         12.08.2022, 25.08.2022, 06.09.2022, 27.09.2022 and
                                         10.10.2022 demanding compounding charges as per the
                                         Circular dated 10.11.1997, issued under [Section 143](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86084344/) of the
                                         Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (in
                                         short 'the Act of 1966').
   

2.            The brief facts of the present case are as under:
   

The petitioner is a Public Trust and also Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act. The
petitioner is running various schools and colleges. The
petitioner owns certain lands within the limits of Municipal
Council and to impart education the petitioner constructed
premises on such lands.
3. The respondent No.2-Tahsildar, on 21.06.2022
935 wp 7135-2022.odt 2 issued notice to the petitioner under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Act of 1966, in respect of construction made by the
petitioner in Gat Nos.117, 118, 131, 132, 121, 141, 146 and
147 alleging that the construction was made without prior
permission.

1.     The petitioner thereupon, submitted an application
   

   under Section 44 of the Act of 1966 on 23.06.2022, along
   with all the necessary maps for grant of permission to retain
   the construction on the aforesaid lands. Thereupon, the
   impugned communications were issued claiming
   development charges and compounding charges.

2.     The compounding charges at the rate of 10% of the
   

   construction cost levied on the basis of the Government
   order dated 10.11.1997. As far as the issuance of demands
   for the development charges and compounding charges are
   concerned, an appeal came to be filed which is pending.
   However, the petitioner Trust wants to raise a challenge to
   the Government order dated 10.11.1997, which is the basis
   for levying such charges. Hence this petition.

3.     We have heard learned Counsel for the respective
   

   parties.

4.     Shri Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel argued that the
   

   Government order dated 10.11.1997, which is the basis for
   levying the 10% compounding charges on construction
   costs, was issued under Section 143 of the Act of 1966. It is
   argued that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already
   held in the judgment in the case of Divgi Metal Wares Pvt.
   Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune and
   935 wp 7135-2022.odt 3 others (2019) 5 Mah L.J. 484, that, under Section 143 of
   the Act of 1966, there is no power to levy such
   compounding charges, as the said provision contemplates
   compounding of penal action for offences committed under
   the provisions of the Act of 1966. He, therefore, submits
   that the demands raised vide the impugned
   communications, as well as the Government Order dated
   10.11.1997, are illegal, bad in law, and liable to be quashed
   and set aside.

5.  Shri Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel, further
   

   submits that in the year 2017, Section 52A came to be
   enacted in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
   Act, 1966, which relates to certain developments as
   compounded structures. He further invites attention to Rule
   13 of the Maharashtra Town Planning (Compounded
   Structures) Rules, 2017 (in short 'the Rules of 2017'). It is
   thus argued that there is no dispute that the respondent
   authority has the power to levy compounding charges;
   however, such power cannot be exercised under Section 143 or under the Government Order dated 10.11.1997.
   According to the learned Senior Counsel, the same can be
   exercised only under Section 52A of the Act of 1966 and in
   accordance with the Rules of 2017.

6.  On the other hand, Ms. K. P. Marpakwar, learned
   

   AGP, does not dispute that this Court, in the case of Divgi
   Metal Wares Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has categorically held that
   there is no power under Section 143 of the Act of 1966 to
   levy compounding charges as levied in the present case.

935 wp 7135-2022.odt 4 However, she submits that there is no dispute regarding the
authority of the respondent to levy compounding charges
and, therefore, the impugned action of levying such charges
cannot ipso facto be considered illegal. She, therefore,
submits that the petition needs to be dismissed.

1. Having considered the rival contentions and upon
   

   perusal of the record, it is evident that the impugned
   demands raised by the respondents towards compounding
   charges at the rate of 10% of the construction cost are
   primarily based on the Government Order dated
   10.11.1997. There is no dispute that the said Government
   Order was issued in exercise of the powers under Section
   143 of the Act of 1966.

2. The question as to whether compounding charges
   

   can be levied under Section 143 of the Act of 1966 is no
   longer res integra, inasmuch as a Coordinate Bench of this
   Court in Divgi Metal Wares Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has, in clear
   terms, observed that there is no such power under Section

3. The observations made in paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17,
   20 and 21 in the said judgment read thus:

"18. Thus, there has to be an application for
permission for development and that is contemplated
by sub-section (1) of section 44. It could be that the
Rules are in place enabling the making of an
application in a particular form and setting out the
details as also the accompanying documents, but it is
evident from sub-section (1) that each of these
aspects have to be prescribed and the word
"prescribed" means prescribed by the Rules. It is
evident that the grant of permission or refusal is dealt
with by section 45. In the event, a person is seeking
935 wp 7135-2022.odt 5 permission, then while granting it the Planning
Authority must consider and shall have due regard to
the provisions of any draft or final plan or proposal
published by means of notice submitted or sanctioned
under the Act. Any person aggrieved by an order
granting permission on conditions or refusing
permission under section 45 can prefer an Appeal and
the appellate power is conferred by section 47 in the
State Government. Section 48 provides for lapse of
permission whereas section 49 deals with a distinct
matter, namely, an obligation to acquire land on
refusal of permission or on grant of permission in
certain cases. Section 50 deals with deletion of
reservation whereas section 51 confers power to
revoke and modify a permission to a development.
granted under section 44.

1. A bare perusal of these two provisions coupled with section 54 leaves us in no manner of doubt that while section 52 makes the acts specified therein to be an offence and for which penalty can be imposed, and for a continuing breach section 53 confers power to require removal of unauthorised development. In that, we find that there are two distinct provisions- one by which the Planning Authority can serve on the owner, developer or occupier a prior notice of 24 hours requiring him to restore the land to conditions existing before the development took place when it finds that such development is without the permission required under the Act or in contravention of any permission which has been duly modified. If the owner, developer or occupier fails to restore the land though required to do so, then the Planning Authority shall immediately take steps to demolish such development and seal the machinery and materials used or being used therefor. Where the development has been carried but that is not in accordance with any permission granted, or is in contravention of any condition subject to which the permission has been granted, or is in contravention of any permission 935 wp 7135-2022.odt 6 which has been duly modified, then, a distinct notice can be served under section 53 (1-A) requiring the person/noticee to carry out the acts enlisted in the sub-section and if the person aggrieved by such notice seeks to retain the activity carried out, then he can approach the Authority under sub-section (3) of section 53 for retention, and how that matter has to be dealt with is then set out in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6). It is thus apparent that none of these provisions, save and except sub-section (7), authorise recovery of any money. Thus, while allowing retention nothing other than what is prescribed or permitted by law can be done by the Planning Authority. The imposition of fine or penalty and conviction along with fine are distinct matters and we are not concerned therewith. We are only concerned with the issue as to whether the compounding fees, as demanded from the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 7706 of 2012, can be recovered at the stage of consideration of an application traceable to subsection (3) of section 53. We have not been shown any provision either under this section or any other sections of the law which would enable the Planning Authority to recover such fees. It is evident from a perusal of the further chapters and particularly the chapter which enables levy, assessment and recovery of development charge that those are different aspects and dealt with separately. By Chapter IX, which enables the Planning Authority, inter alia, to make regulations unless there is a specific matter on which regulations can be made, in the absence thereof, by a mere Circular, a demand of the present nature could not have been raised. Thus, the demand has to be backed by an authority of law. Power, authority and jurisdiction in law being lacking, a mere General Body Resolution cannot sustain any such demand. We have clearly found the absence of a legal backing to the demand. We have found that no rules have been made authorising the imposition of compounding charges and their recovery. In the 935 wp 7135-2022.odt 7 absence of a legal framework, we cannot sustain the Resolution as also the Circular on some general grounds pleaded by the Municipal Corporation in their affidavit."
2. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid observations that under Section 143 of the Act of 1966, there is no such power to demand compounding charges, particularly in view of the specific provision, namely Section 52A of the Act of 1966, which was incorporated in the year 2017. At this juncture, thus, it would be relevant and beneficial to refer to Section 52A, which reads thus:

"[52A. Provisions relating to certain developments as
compounded structure (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or any other law, for the time
being in force, or in any judgment, order or direction
of any Court where unauthorised development has
been carried out on or before the 31st December
2015, in the area of Development Plan, the State
Government may, upon the request of the Planning
Authority, specify the terms and conditions, not
inconsistent with the rules made in this behalf, on
compliance of which and the compounding charges,
infrastructure charges and premium on payment of
which, the Planning Authority may declare such
development as compounded structure.
(2) On declaration of such development as
compounded structure under sub-section (1), no
further proceedings under any law for the time being
in force against the owner or occupier of such
structure shall be taken or continued:

Provided that, no further development shall
be permissible in any compounded structure, other
than repairs and maintenance, and any development
or reconstruction of such structure shall be only as
per the provisions of the prevailing Development
Control Regulations.]"
935 wp 7135-2022.odt 8

1. Furthermore, since Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017 is relevant for deciding the issues involved in the present petition, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 13, which reads thus:

"(13) In respect of unauthorised development to be
declared as compounded structure, in addition to the
Development Charges, -

(a) (i) Infrastructure charges equal to the
development charges shall be levied and recovered.

(ii) Compounding charges not less than double the
development charges shall be levied and recovered.

(b) Premium shall be assessed, levied and recovered
as applicable in the jurisdiction of planning
authorities for the categories such as Additional Floor
Space Index premium, Transferrable Development
Rights (TDR) loading premium, infrastructure
improvement charges, deficiency premium etc. as the
case may be."
14. It is thus evident from the above referred provisions
that the Planning Authority has been empowered to
regularize certain unauthorized developments as
compounded structures where such unauthorized
development has been carried out on or before 31.12.2015
in the area covered by the Development Plan, subject to an
application being made to the Planning Authority and
compliance with the provisions of the Rules framed in that
regard.

1.   Similarly,   Rule     13     deals   with   unauthorized
   

   development to be declared as compounded structure.

2.   Thus, it is evident that if the respondent authorities
   

   intend to levy compounding charges for declaring an
   unauthorized development as a compounded structure,
   935 wp 7135-2022.odt 9 such charges can be levied under Section 52A of the Act of
   1966 as prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017.
   However, in any case, such power is not available under Section 143 of the Act of 1966.

3.  In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to
                                  hold that the Government order dated 10.11.1997 is
                                  contrary to law and needs to be quashed and set aside.
   

4.  Consequently,      the    communications        dated
                                  12.08.2022, 25.08.2022, 06.09.2022, 27.09.2022 and
                                  10.10.2022, which are based on the said Government Order
                                  dated 10.11.1997 and impugned in the present petition, are
                                  hereby quashed and set aside, with liberty to respondent
                                  Nos. 2 and 3 to issue fresh notices in accordance with the
                                  provisions of [Section 52A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185815831/) of the Act of 1966 for levying the
                                  requisite charges to treat the construction made by the
                                  petitioner as a compounded structure.
   

5.  It is further directed that the respondent authorities
                                  shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner
                                  unless such notices are issued and reasonable time be
                                  granted to the petitioner to deposit the compounding
                                  charges. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the above
                                  terms.
   

6.  The respondent-Tahsildar shall initiate proceedings
                                  for levying the compounding charges within a period of four
                                  weeks from today, in accordance with law.
   

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
R.S. Sahare

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/03/2026 18:27:59