IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.92 OF 2026
(Coram: DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
Decided on: 06.07.2026
VASANT HARMALKAR … PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SDO
AND ANR. …. RESPONDENTS
Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction Act, 2016 – Section 3 – For structures to fall within the scope and ambit of any of the constructions listed in the provision, which can be considered for regularization, corroborating ownership claim by the Applicant to the said property is paramount.
Held
A plain reading of the provision under which unauthorised construction may be regularised under the Act indicates that the person seeking such regularisation must be the absolute owner of the property or hold it jointly with other co-owners.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I have found no infirmity in the impugned orders. The Petitioner has failed to establish ownership, whether individual or otherwise, that would entitle him to benefit from the provisions of the Act and to regularise the unauthorised construction. Alternatively, even accepting the Petitioner as a co-owner of the structure as per his claim, he has failed to obtain an NOC/consent from his alleged co-owners. (Para 8, 9 and 17)
For Judgment Click 👇

