The division bench noted that while demolition is not the sole solution to illegal constructions, action must be taken to prevent their occurrence. This was stated during the hearing of a suo motu petition regarding illegal constructions.

The bench, which included Justices MS Karnik and Valmiki Menezes, emphasized the “serious need for legislation” since the current penal provisions do not serve as a deterrent.

During the hearing, the High Court examined municipal laws under the Municipality Act, the powers of the chief officer, and sought to identify the responsible officers who address complaints about illegal constructions in municipal areas.

Advocate General Devidas Pangam mentioned that the chief officer, municipal engineer, and municipal inspector could hold regular meetings to discuss illegal constructions within their jurisdiction, reviewing complaints received, show cause notices issued, and actions taken.

Pangam suggested that the court should prioritize addressing illegal constructions along the roadside, as this issue is escalating.

He proposed that the High Court issue notices to the Public Works Department (PWD), highway authorities, and the collector regarding this matter.

He argued that illegal commercial structures along the roadside benefit from a significant advantage by not paying taxes, which puts genuine businesses, that invest heavily to establish themselves in strategic locations, at a disadvantage.

Last week, the division bench, which included the Chief Justice of the High Court, remarked on the “unabated voluminous illegal encroachments on public land, public roads, pathways, and the large number of illegal constructions observed in recent years.” They took suo motu cognizance and directed that a separate public interest petition be registered to investigate the challenges faced by citizens due to these illegal encroachments and constructions in panchayat, municipal, Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), and No Development Zone areas.