The Bombay High Court raised concerns about the common belief that illegal constructions can be legalised after they are built, highlighting the growing number of such structures. The court rejected a plea that sought to reverse a property's demolition and sought Rs 5 crore in compensation, stating that "there would be utter lawlessness" if the requests were granted.

Justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata considered imposing a fine of ₹5 lakh on Hanuman Jairam Naik, a Navi Mumbai resident, for trying to "mislead the courts" with his petition. However, they decided against it after his lawyer requested to reverse the decision. "Petitions are filed solely with the intention of taking a chance and obtaining interim relief by misleading the courts in some manner or form," the High Court remarked. On considering the fine, the bench said that it was imposed "to deter this class of petitioners". The petitioner requested the court to declare that the demolition of his property by the civic body in December 2024 was unlawful. He also demanded Rs 5 crore as compensation for the damage and mental distress he suffered and asked for the restoration of the demolished structure. 

Naik stated that he owned a house on a plot of land, which had become weak and unsafe. In 2022, he decided to demolish it and build a multi-story building in its place. However, the court pointed out that Naik had admitted to tearing down and reconstructing the building without getting approval from the proper authorities. The bench rejected the petition, stating that something illegal cannot be corrected. "The petitioner cannot simply use illiteracy as a defence for engaging in illegal activities. If such petitions are entertained, there would be complete lawlessness," the bench observed. The court observed that Naik received a demolition notice in July 2022 but did not respond to it.

Instead, he tried to challenge it legally by filing multiple civil cases. He later withdrew one case and filed a new one in May 2024, which led to a status quo order. However, despite this order, his property was demolished in December 2024. The bench criticised Naik’s approach, pointing out that while he had the right to file civil cases, he failed to take essential legal steps, such as getting approval from an architect. 

"If the petitioner could file civil suits for an injunction, he could have also approached an architect. He chose not to. The petitioner followed the widespread belief that one can first construct and then regularise it if a notice is issued by the competent authority." The court further remarked, "We find that this belief is often justified, as we have observed the rise of slums and illegal constructions in Maharashtra over time, with no action taken to demolish them. It is this inaction by the state authorities that fuels the ambitions of individuals like the petitioner".