Rajendra Kumar Barjatya vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

2024 INSC 990 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14604 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.36440 of 2014)

RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHER ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14605 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1184 of 2015)

RAJEEV GUPTA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenging the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 in Writ-C.No.46342 of 2013, the Signature Not Verified

appellants herein, who are third parties to the proceedings, have preferred the Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2024.12.17 16:50:05 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court” 2

present appeals.

3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking for

issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to stop the

illegal / unauthorized commercial construction on residential plot no.661/6,

Shastri Nagar Yojna No.7, Meerut, and to provide police force to execute the

order of demolition dated 31.05.2011 passed by the competent authority viz.,

Executive Engineer, Construction Division-8, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad,

Sector 9, Shastri Nagar, Meerut.

4. By the judgment and order impugned herein, the High Court allowed the

above writ petition with the following directions and observations:

(a) The District Magistrate, Meerut and the Senior Superintendent of Police Meerut shall remain present on the date and time to be notified by the petitioner-Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for the purposes of demolition of unauthorized constructions. Such demolitions must be effected on or before 31st December, 2014.

(b) Criminal proceedings should be launched against respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as against the officers, who were In-charge of the office of Awas Vikas Parishad at the relevant time including the Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer when these constructions had come up.

(c) The Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow shall ensure that the departmental proceedings are also initiated against the officers of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad responsible for the situation, which has been created. The Housing Commissioner shall also ensure that all like nature of unauthorized constructions are similarly dealt with without any discrimination and without any favourtism. For the purpose, he shall ensure that the highest officer posted in the office of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad at Meerut is made personally responsible for giving notice to the owner/persons in possession of the unauthorized occupations. The proceedings must be decided and appropriate action be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There should be no complaint to this Court that any person has been treated favourably in the matter of demolition of the unauthorized 3

constructions.

(d) We also direct the Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow to ensure that the district authorities at Meerut are responded to the request of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in the matter of demolition with all promptness and with full force.

(e) We make it clear that all unauthorized constructions have to be dealt with in same manner.”

5. At the outset, it is imperative to note the relevant background facts

leading to the present litigation. The Respondent No.5 by name, Veer Singh was

originally allotted a plot bearing No.661/6, situated in Bhoomi Vikas, Grisathan

Yojna No.7, Sector No.6, Phase-1, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P.2 by the

Respondent No.1 on 30.08.1986. Possession was also handed over to him on

15.06.1989. In respect of the subject property, the Respondent No.1 executed a

freehold deed dated 06.10.2004 in favour of the Respondent No.5 with specific

condition that the property shall be used only for residential purposes. Contrary

to the same, the Respondent No.5 with the assistance of his power of attorney

agent by name, Vinod Arora i.e., Respondent No.6, started raising illegal

commercial construction on the subject property without obtaining any sanction

/ approval from the Respondent No.1. Though show cause notices were issued

to him, he neither responded to the same nor took any steps against the illegal

construction, which compelled the competent authority to pass the order of

demolition of the illegal / unauthorized construction on the subject property on

31.05.2011. However, the Respondent No.1 was unable to execute the said

2 Hereinafter shortly referred to as the “subject property” 4

order, due to lack of co-operation from the local as well as police authorities.

Therefore, they preferred the Writ Petition bearing No.46342 of 2013, which

was allowed by the High Court, by order dated 05.12.2014, which is assailed in

these appeals by the appellants herein, who are the owners of the commercial

shops, which are stated to have been illegally / unauthorizedly constructed on

the subject property by the Respondent Nos.5 and 6.

6. The common submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants in these appeals are that admittedly, shops in the subject property

have been in existence for the past 24 years; and the Respondent No.1 had

converted the subject property from leasehold to freehold by the registered

document dated 06.10.2004 on "As is where is basis" and as per clause 6(a) of

the said deed, the Respondent No.1 had accepted the construction made on the

subject property and they were fully aware of the same from its inception. That

apart, through registered sale deeds, all the appellants herein had purchased the

shops constructed on the subject property for valuable consideration and have

been occupying the premises since then and earning their livelihood. However,

the Respondent No.1 without issuing notice under section 82 of the U.P. Avas

Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 19653 to the appellants, erroneously took

steps to demolish the entire construction in the subject property by treating the

same as illegal and unauthorized one and also obtained the demolition order

3 For short, “the Act” 5

from the High Court, which is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles

of natural justice. In support of the same, the learned counsel placed reliance on

the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v. Inderjeet

Singh4, wherein, demolition of commercial property was carried out by

Municipal Corporation, without serving proper notice on the respondent i.e.,

notice was served on a dead person and in such circumstances, it was observed

by this Court that ‘had a proper show cause notice been served upon the first

respondent, he could have shown that the alleged violation of the provisions of

the Act is of negligible character, which did not warrant an order of

demolition.’

6.1. Elaborating further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

without issuing notice to the appellants and occupants of the shops, the High

Court has ordered demolition of the entire construction in the subject property.

According to the learned counsel, the High Court, before ordering demolition,

should have directed the authorities to explore the possibility of regularizing the

alleged illegal construction in the subject property. It is also submitted by the

learned counsel that there were initially about 15 to 20 shops and now, there are

more than 600 commercial establishments run in the area earmarked as ‘Central

Market’, but the Respondent No.1 failed in its statutory duty to keep pace with

the booming development and therefore, this situation has arisen. It is further

4 (2008) 13 SCC 506 6

alleged that the Respondent No.1 adopted a pick and choose policy, whereby

the construction made on the subject property was cherry picked for demolition,

whereas in the entire vicinity of the Central market, buildings like this have

blossomed and mushroomed. The learned counsel ultimately, submitted that the

right of the Respondent No.1 to seek demolition is barred by delay and laches

and they were negligent and acted hand in glove with the people responsible for

such sorry state of affairs and that, in terms of Sections 92 to 94 r/w Sections 3,

7 and 8 of the Act, the State Government has full rights and control over the

Respondent No.1, but they failed to exercise the same in proper perspective.

Resultantly, due to no fault on the part of the appellants, their valuable rights are

jeopardized and prejudiced at the hands of the Respondent No.1, who are acting

in collusion and connivance with dishonest builders and land grabbers. Stating

so, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the

High court and allow these appeals.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

No.1 made detailed submissions reiterating the averments stated in the counter

affidavit. According to him, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad viz., Respondent

No.1 is the Housing Board of the State of Uttar Pradesh, an autonomous body

created under the statute and governed by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 7

Adhiniyam, 19655. With a view to eliminate housing problem and have a

planned development in the District of Meerut, they floated a scheme called

“Shastri Nagar Yojna No.7”. In the said scheme, plots were carved out and

categorized as residential and commercial as per usage. The residential plots

could be used only for constructing the residential house and no commercial

activity was permitted on the said plots. However, the Respondent No.5 started

raising illegal commercial construction on the plot allotted to him, without

obtaining any sanction from the competent authority. Though the Respondent

No.1 sent show cause notices / communication to the Respondent No.5 to stop

the illegal construction and get the same regularized, the Respondent No.5 did

not respond to the same and he continued to construct the shops for commercial

purposes. Therefore, the competent authority rightly passed the order of

demolition of the unauthorized construction. But the said order was not

enforced by the Respondent No.1, due to non-co-operation of the local as well

as police authorities. Finally, the Respondent No.1 approached the High Court

by filing the writ petition stating that the subject property was patently in

violation of the statutory provisions applicable and it has to be demolished. The

High Court after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly

passed the impugned order, which need not be interfered with by this Court.

7.1. In reply to the contentions raised on the side of the appellants, the learned

counsel for the Respondent No.1 made the following submissions:

5

For short, “the Act” 8

(i) The Respondent No.5 got the property converted from leasehold to

freehold on the basis of the fabricated construction completion certificate.

(ii) Unauthorized construction was made only by the original allottee i.e.,

Respondent No.5 and not the appellants. Further, the Respondent No.1 did not

know about the change of interest qua the subject property as it was never

intimated to them. Moreover, the appellants were aware of the unauthorized

construction and notices issued to stop the same, at the time of purchasing the

shops itself. In such circumstances, there was no need for the appellants to be

arrayed as parties before the High Court in adherence to the principles of natural

justice.

(iii) The Respondent No.1 from the year 1990 onwards had served several

notices on the Respondent No.5, directing him to stop the unauthorized

construction, but he never paid heed to any of the notices and continued to raise

the unauthorized construction. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the

Respondent No.1 lost its right to demolish the said unauthorized construction on

the ground of delay and laches.

(iv) The appellants’ right over the shops was created in pursuance of the

change in usage of plot and unauthorized construction raised by the original

allottee, which was never approved by the Respondent No.1 and therefore, in no

way, their rights are being infringed by the Respondent No.1. Further, it cannot

be said that the action of the Respondent No.1 is barred by the principles of

acquiescence and estoppel.

9 (v) The violations made by Respondent No.5 are deliberate, designed and

motivated and it is not a case where the violations are marginal or insignificant

or that it had crept in accidentally. It is only after complying with all the

requirements of law that a violation would qualify for regularization. Therefore,

there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the High Court directing

demolition of the unauthorized construction.

(vi) Nevertheless, the appellants always have a remedy to sue the

Respondent No.5 for return of money and/or damages.

(vii) After carrying out all kinds of development activities in different

sectors of the Scheme, the Respondent No.1 allotted commercial properties,

wherever required, by way of auction sale and commercial activities are taking

place on such properties and therefore, it is wrong to state that the Respondent

No.1 failed in its duty to provide planned development in the area.

(viii) An illegal act, more so, when it was done deliberately, does not

become legal only because certain length of time has passed.

Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appeals filed by the

appellants may be dismissed by this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 made his submissions

supporting the case of the Respondent No.1 in entirety. Placing reliance on the

counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities, it is submitted by the

learned counsel that they are ready to provide all the protection and facilities to

the Respondent No.1 to demolish the unauthorized construction as ordered by 10

the High Court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for appropriate orders

in these appeals.

9. During the pendency of these appeals, the Respondent No.5 died, his

legal heirs were brought on record as Respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.6, and the cause

title was accordingly amended. Despite the service of notice, none appeared on

behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.5. Qua the Respondent

No.6, who also died during the pendency of these appeals, it was recorded by

this Court on 24.03.20226 in SLP(C)No.36440 of 2014 that considering the

status of the parties and the subject matter in issue, there was no requirement to

substitute the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent No.6. In such

circumstances, we have to examine the stand of the Respondent No.5 as was

placed before the High Court. It was stated by the Respondent No.5 therein that

after allotment, the Respondent No.5 executed a power of attorney in respect of

the subject property in favour of the Respondent No.6, who raised the illegal /

unauthorized commercial construction on the same. He categorically admitted

that the construction was made without any sanctioned map / plan by the

Respondent No.6. However, he has no objection, if the construction is

demolished and he shall not claim any compensation from the Respondent

6 It has been pointed out that respondent No. 6 in these petitions, Shri Vinod Arora S/o Late K.L. Arora, has expired. It has also been pointed out that he has been a party in these matters in his capacity as power of attorney holder of the other private i.e., respondent No. 5. Looking at the status of the parties and the subject matter of these petitions, as at present, we see no reason to require substitution of legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Learned counsel for the parties may file short notes on their submissions while also clarifying the position at site, as existing today.

List these matters for final hearing at the admission stage on 27.04.2022. 11

No.1. Thus, according to the Respondent No.5, the Respondent No.6 was the

original owner of the shops which were constructed on the subject property on

the strength of the power of attorney executed by the Respondent No.5.

Whereas, it was stated by the Respondent No.6 before the High Court that it

was the Respondent No.5, who had raised construction of the shops and had

sold the same to the different persons.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the

Respondent No.1 and the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also perused the materials

available on record carefully and meticulously.

11. This Court on 17.12.20147 in SLP(CC) No.21102 of 20148, granted an

order of status quo in respect of the shop nos.6 and 10 situated in the subject

property on condition that the appellants deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on or

before 23.12.2014. The said order was duly complied with by the appellants.

Thereafter, as per the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by this Court, the deposited

amount was kept in interest bearing account. It is revealed from the latest office

report dated 18.11.2024 that amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the

7 The notice shall be issued, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before this Court by 23"" December, 2014.

Status quo, existing as on today, qua the Shop Nos.10 and 6, Ground Floor, Plot No.661/ 6, Bhoomi Vikas, Grisathan Yojna No. 7, Sector No.6, Phase-I, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P., of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively, shall be maintained till the next date of hearing. 8 Arising out of which is SLP(C) No.36440 of 2014 12

appellants in SLP(C)No.36440 of 2014, was kept in an interest-bearing Fixed

Deposit with UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, which is being renewed

from time to time and is now bearing the next date of maturity on 10.05.2025.

12. This Court also granted an order of status quo on 05.01.20159 in

SLP(CC) No.21820 of 201410. Subsequently, at the instance of the appellants,

on 30.11.201811, the said order was clarified by this Court to the effect that it

confined to the shops of the seven appellants in the subject property.

13. Concededly, the appellants are third parties to the writ proceedings. They

have come up with these appeals stating that they are the most affected persons

by the order passed by the High Court and will be deprived of their livelihood if

the same is implemented. It is the principal contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants that the shops have been in existence for the past 24

years and the appellants are the owners of the same by virtue of the registered 9 Permission to file special leave petition is granted.

Issue notice, returnable within eight weeks.

Status quo, existing as on today, shall be maintained until further orders.

10

Arising out of which is SLP (C) No.1184 of 2015 11 I.A. No. 98823/2017 is for seeking a clarification of the order of this Court dated 5.1.2015 so that the status quo as directed should be maintained in respect of the shops of the seven petitioners in the special leave petition.

Our attention has been drawn to the fact that an order was passed by this Court on 17.12.2014 in another special leave petition bearing SLP(C) No. 36440/2014 to that effect. Hence, we direct that the order of status quo dated 5.1.2015 shall stand confined to the shops of the seven petitioners in plot No. 661/6 in Bhumi Vikas, Grihsthan Yojana No.7, Sector-6, Phase-I, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P. The I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.

List the matter in the second week of January, 2019 along with SLP(C) No. 36440/2014. 13

sale deed and the Respondent No.1 was fully aware of the construction made on

the subject property from its inception. However, without issuing any notice to

the appellants and occupants of the shops, the order of demolition came to be

passed and hence, it is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of

natural justice.

14. The facts remain undisputed are that the Respondent No.5 was allotted

the subject property on 30.08.1986 and possession was handed over to him on

15.06.1989. The Respondent No.1 had executed a sale deed cum free hold deed

in favour of the Respondent No.5 in respect of the subject property, on

06.10.2004. It is alleged by the Respondent No.1 that the said deed was

executed by the Respondent No.1 based on the fabricated construction

completion certificate produced by the Respondent No.5 and he with the

assistance of the Respondent No.6, after possession, started to construct

commercial shops, without obtaining sanctioned map / plan / approval from the

competent authority. Clause 6-B of the said deed dated 06.10.2004 specifically

stated that the property shall be used only for the residential purposes. It was

also clearly mentioned in Clause 8 that the said property shall not be used for

any purposes other than residential purposes and the Registered intending buyer

shall always follow the rules and bylaws of the Council in respect of the

property sold. However, there was no material available to prove that the

Respondent No.5 was in possession of the sanctioned plan in respect of the

construction made on the subject property or that he submitted any application 14

before the authority concerned seeking sanction / approval for such construction

and the same was pending. It is also pertinent to mention at this juncture that the

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the High Court categorically admitted that the

construction of the commercial shops was made without there being any

sanctioned plan from the competent authority. The survey report produced by

the Respondent No.1 relating to Scheme No.7, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, would

further disclose that there are 6379 sanctioned residential properties, in which

860 plots have been used for commercial purpose. Therefore, it is crystal clear

that the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 without obtaining sanctioned plan / approval

from the competent authority, illegally / unauthorizedly constructed the shops

on the subject property, for commercial purposes and sold to the appellants and

others for valuable consideration.

15. Undoubtedly, the competent authority under section 83 of the Act, is

empowered to remove the unauthorized construction. As stated earlier, in this

case, the plot allotted to the Respondent No.5 was residential in nature and the

same was illegally used for commercial purpose and therefore, the construction

raised on the subject property was liable to be removed by the competent

authority. However it is the specific case of the appellants that the Respondent

No.5 started to construct the commercial shops in the year 1990 itself, i.e.,

immediately after taking possession of the subject property and the Respondent

No.1 was fully aware of such construction made by the Respondent No.5, from 15

its inception, but they did not take immediate steps against the same. It can be

reasonably inferred that the Respondent No.1 was aware of the construction

made on the subject property at the beginning itself, which prompted them to

issue show cause notice dated 19.09.1990 to the Respondent No.5 to stop the

illegal construction and take appropriate steps. Without giving reply to the

same, the Respondent No.5 continued to raise illegal commercial construction

on the plot allotted to him. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.09.2002, the

Respondent No.1 instructed the Respondent No.5 to get the illegal construction

regularized. But the Respondent No.5 did not respond to the same and he

continued the illegal construction of some more shops on the subject property.

Therefore, the Respondent No.1 sent a notice dated 09.02.2004 to the

Respondent No.5 stating that the plot allotted to him was being illegally used

for commercial purpose and hence, the construction raised on the subject

property was liable to be removed under section 83 of the Act. Even thereafter,

the Respondent No.5 failed to reply to the said notice, which compelled the

competent authority to pass an order of demolition dated 23.03.2005 for

removal of unauthorized construction. However, the said order could not be

executed by the Respondent No.1. In the meanwhile, the shops constructed on

the subject property were purchased by the appellants herein and others, which

was not intimated to the Respondent No.1 by the Respondent No.5. It is also

evident from the records that in the year 2011, the Respondent No.5 again

started to raise the illegal construction on the subject property, which was 16

objected to by the Respondent No.1 by issuing notice dated 20.04.2011 and

directing him to immediately stop the unauthorized construction and show cause

as to why the same should not be demolished. However, there was no reply on

the side of the Respondent No.5. Finding no other alternative, the competent

authority by exercising powers under section 83 of the Act, passed the order

dated 31.05.2011 to demolish the said illegal construction raised on the subject

property. Thus, from 1990 onwards, though the Respondent No.1 had

periodically issued notices for removal of unauthorized constructions, it did not

lead to actual removal/ demolition. Despite sufficient opportunities being

granted to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 they did not utilize the same and continued

the illegality. Such parties cannot plead estoppel. Even otherwise, we are of the

view that there cannot be any estoppel against law. The lapses on the part of the

authorities will not vest any person with a right to put up construction without

planning approval and in violation of the conditions regarding usage. However,

the fact that the notices issued by the authorities between 1990 to 2013 did not

culminate into demolition, would speak volumes about the lackadaisical attitude

of the authorities and that also smacks of collusion with the violators. Therefore,

the fact that the building has stood over 24 years will not clothe the appellants

with any right in law and hence we do not find any force in the contentions of

the counsel for the appellants alleging delay and latches.

16. As regards the allegation raised by the appellants that without issuing any

notice, the order of demolition came to be passed against them, the records 17

reveal that before passing the order of demolition dated 30.05.2011 by the

competent authority, the Respondent No.1 sent show cause notice dated

20.04.2011 to the Respondent No.5 pointing out the raising of commercial

construction illegally on the plot allotted for residential use, that too, without

sanctioned map / plan and permission accorded. Subsequently, the copy of the

notice served on the Respondent No.5 was pasted on the notice board. But the

Respondent No.5 failed to appear before the authority concerned to put forth his

stand. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 passed the order dated 31.05.2011 for

demolishing the unauthorized construction, but the same did not take place.

16.1. Even thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 continued to raise illegal

commercial construction, which led the Respondent No.1 to lodge a First

Information Report on 29.07.2013 and also sought for assistance from

Respondent No. 4 for demolition. However, on account of the fact that there

was no assistance from the police, the demolition could not be proceeded with.

It is thereafter that the Respondent No.1 approached the High Court by filing

the writ petition. It is clear from the above narration of facts that there has been

no violation of the principles of natural justice and the Respondent No.1 after

sending notices to the original allottee i.e., Respondent No.5 took steps to

remove the unauthorized construction made on the subject property. Therefore,

the action impugned now is not de novo action, but only continuation of the

earlier line of events as stated above.

18

16.2 As regards the rights of the appellants, independent from that of

Respondent No.5, are concerned, we are unable to believe that the appellants

did not even verify the original allotment order before purchase of the property

to know the permissible use of the property and the factum of existence or

otherwise of any approval in respect of the commercial building purchased by

them. In this regard, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor would require the buyer to

perform all acts within his capacity to ascertain the title of the seller and the

defects in the property. Further, Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 55 of the Transfer

of Property Act makes it clear when the buyer with ordinary care is not able to

ascertain the material defect in the property or in the seller’s title, it becomes the

duty of the seller to disclose the same though it is the primary responsibility is

on the buyer to ascertain the defects in the property and the title. In the present

case, it appears that neither the appellants as buyers nor the Respondent No. 5 as

seller have performed their obligations under the law. Having said this, it is

pertinent to mention here that some notices have also been issued after the

appellants have come into occupation of the premises. Thus, the contention of

the appellants that they were not put on notice and that the orders are in

violation of the principles of natural justice, is a fig leaf of a defence that can

hardly have any basis in law.

17. The deed dated 06.10.2004 said to have been executed by the 19

Respondent No.1 granting freehold right to the Respondent No.5 while

simultaneously issuing notices against unauthorized constructions, does not

inspire the confidence of this court. In any event the said grant is also subject to

a condition that it shall be used for residential purpose and hence it cannot be

treated as a licence to construct the shops without any sanction/approval. That

apart, the registration of the property would not in any way amount to

regularizing the unauthorized construction. The power to take action against an

unauthorized construction is independent and not in anyway connected to the

Registration Act. Seen from any angle the appellants cannot claim that the

construction of shops was in accordance with law.

18. Notably, the High Court, in the order impugned herein, clearly observed

that the officials who are responsible for ensuring planned land development

and for ensuring that no unauthorized/illegal constructions take place,

themselves start colluding with the land mafias. A situation has been created,

where the authority itself is forced to approach the High Court for a writ of

mandamus to the district police to provide help in the matter of demolition of

the unauthorized constructions, which have been raised within the jurisdictional

territory of the authority concerned. Having held thus, and also considering the

stand of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 that they have no objection for demolition

of the unauthorized construction, the High Court passed the order of demolition

with direction to the authorities. We find no reason much less valid reason to 20

interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the High Court.

19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of

unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in

contravention of the Acts / Rules, it would be construed as illegal and

unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be

legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing

inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial

money has been spent on the said construction. The following decisions are of

relevance and hence cited herein below to drive home the point that

unauthorized constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not kid

gloves.

(i) In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council12, after

having found that the impugned resolution sanctioning plan for conversion of

building into a cinema was in violation of the Town Planning Scheme and

hence, it has no legal foundation, this Court held that the High Court was wrong

in not quashing the resolution on the surmise that money might have been spent.

The relevant passage reads as follows:

“29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The scheme here is for the benefit of the public. There is special interest in the performance of the duty. All the residents in the area have their personal interest in the

12 (1974) 2 SCC 506 21

performance of the duty. The special and substantial interest of the residents in the area is injured by the illegal construction.

30. The High Court was not correct in holding that though the impeached resolution sanctioning plan for conversion of building into a cinema was in violation of the Town Planning Scheme yet it could not be disturbed because Respondent No.3 is likely to have spent money. An excess of statutory power cannot be validated by acquiescence in or by the operation of an estoppel. The Court declines to interfere for the assistance of persons who seek its aid to relieve them against express statutory provision. Lord Selborne in Maddison v. Alderson [1883] 8 App. Cases 467 said that courts of equity would not permit the statute to be made an instrument of fraud. The impeached resolution of the Municipality has no legal foundation. The High Court was wrong in not quashing the resolution on the surmise that money might have been spent. Illegality is incurable.

31. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted. The order of the High Court leaving resolution dated 19 June, 1970 being Annexure 'D' to the petition undisturbed is set aside. The resolution dated 19 June, 1970 being Annexure 'D' to the petition before the High Court is quashed. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.”

(ii) Dr.G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and

others13, in which, the Authority concerned misused the power and allotted the

plot earmarked for park for a nursery school. This Court vehemently

condemned the same and ordered for cancellation of the said allotment, besides

recommending penal action against the authority concerned. The relevant

paragraphs are extracted below:

“8. We, therefore, hold that the land which was allotted to Respondent 2 was part of a park. We further hold that it was not open to the DDA to carve out any space meant for park for a nursery school. We are of the considered view that the allotment in favour of Respondent 2 was misuse of power, for reasons which need not be adverted. It is, therefore, a fit case, according to us, where the allotment in favour of Respondent 2 should be cancelled and we order accordingly. The fact that Respondent 2 has put up some structure stated to be permanent by his counsel is not relevant, as the same has been done on a plot of land allotted to it in contravention of law. As to the submission that dislocation

13 (1995) 5 SCC 762 22

from the present site would cause difficulty to the tiny tots, we would observe that the same has been advanced only to get sympathy from the Court inasmuch as children, for whom the nursery school is meant, would travel to any other nearby place where such a school would be set up either by Respondent 2 or by any other body.

9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by ordering the cancellation of allotment made in favour of Respondent 2. It would be open to this respondent to continue to run the school at this site for a period of six months to enable it to make such alternative arrangements as it thinks fit to shift the school, so that the children are not put to any disadvantageous position suddenly.

10. Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of courts, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not, however, have happen for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite.”

(iii) In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu14, this court in clear

terms, held that there is no alternative to the construction which is unauthorised

and illegal to be dismantled. The relevant paragraphs read thus:

“13. There is no alternative to the construction which is unauthorised and illegal to be dismantled. The whole structure built is in contravention of the provisions of law as contained in the Development Act. The decision to award contract and the agreement itself was unreasonable. The construction of the underground shopping complex, if allowed to stand, would perpetuate an illegality. Mahapalika could not be allowed to benefit from the illegality. A decision of this Court in Seth Badri Prasad and others vs. Seth Nagarmal and

14 (1999) 6 SCC 464 23

others (1959 (1) Supp. SCR 769 at 774) was referred to, to contend that the court could not exclude from its consideration a public statute and since the construction of the underground shopping complex was wholly illegal it had to be dismantled. No question of moulding a relief can arise as the builder made construction on the basis of the interim order of this Court and at its own risk.”

“73. The High Court has directed dismantling of the whole project and for restoration of the park to its original condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. As will be seen in moulding the relief in the present case and allowing one of the blocks meant for parking to stand, we have been guided by the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika to construct and maintain parking lots.”

“81. A number of cases come to this Court pointing to unauthorised constructions taking place at many places in the country by builders in connivance with the corporation/municipal officials. In a series of cases, this Court has directed demolition of unauthorised constructions. This does not appear to have any salutary effect in cases of unauthorised construction coming to this Court. While directing demolition of unauthorised construction, the court should also direct an enquiry as to how the unauthorised construction came about and to bring the offenders to book. It is not enough to direct demolition of unauthorised construction, where there is clear defiance of law. In the present case, but for the observation of the High Court, we would certainly have directed an enquiry to be made as to how the project was conceived and how the agreement dated 4-11-1993 came to be executed.”

(iv) In Esha Ekta Apartments Coop Housing Society Limited v. Municipal

Corporation of Mumbai15, it was observed by this Court that the courts are

expected to refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of 15 (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases : (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Civil) 89 24

illegal and unauthorised constructions and the relevant passage of the said

decision is extracted below:

"1. In the last five decades, the provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring implementation of the master plan, etc. have miserably failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so despite the fact that this Court has, keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the ecology and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the authorities concerned against arbitrary regularisation of illegal construction by way of compounding and otherwise.”

“8. At the outset, we would like to observe that by rejecting the prayer for regularisation of the floors constructed in wanton violation of the sanctioned plan, the Deputy Chief Engineer and the appellate authority have demonstrated their determination to ensure planned development of the commercial capital of the country and the orders passed by them have given a hope to the law-abiding citizens that someone in the hierarchy of administration will not allow unscrupulous developers/builders to take law into their own hands and get away with it.”

“56. We would like to reiterate that no authority administrating municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan. The courts are also expected to refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions else it would encourage violators of the planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas."

(v) The aforesaid view was reiterated in Supertech Limited v. Emerald

Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others16 by holding that illegal

constructions have to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with rule of

law. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

"159. The rampant increase in unauthorised constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several decisions of this Court. This state of affairs has often come to pass in no small a measure because of the collusion between developers and planning authorities.

16 (2021) 10 SCC 1 25

160. From commencement to completion, the process of construction by developers is regulated within the framework of law. The regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the structures under construction, obtaining clearances from the different departments (fire, garden, sewage etc.,) and the issuance of occupation and completion certificates. While the availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it has to be balanced with two crucial considerations

- the protection of the environment and the well-being and safety of those who occupy these constructions. The regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which will have a severe negative environmental impact are not sanctioned. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards. Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

161. The judgments of this Court spanning the last four decades emphasise the duty of planning bodies, while sanctioning building plans and enforcing building regulations and bye-laws to conform to the norms by which they are governed. A breach of the planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the violation of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance.

Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between builders and planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet, confronted with the economic might of developers and the might of legal authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle for rights with little certainty of outcomes. As this case demonstrates, they are denied access to information and are victims of misinformation. Hence, the law must step in to protect their legitimate concerns."

(vi) In Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority vs. Maradu

Municipality17, it was once again reiterated that illegal and unauthorised

constructions put up with brazen immunity, cannot be permitted to remain. The

relevant passage of the said decision is quoted below:

"107. At this stage, we must deal with the argument raised before us by the company. It is submitted that a world class resort has been put up which will

17 (2021) 16 SCC 822 26

promote tourism in a State like Kerala which does not have any industries as such and where tourism has immense potential and jobs will be created. It is submitted that the Court may bear in mind that the company is eco-friendly and if at all the Court is inclined to find against the company, the Court may, in the facts of this case, give direction to the company and the company will strictly abide by any safeguards essential for the preservation of environment.

108. We do not think that this Court should be detained by such an argument.

The Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act is meant to protect the environment and bring about sustainable development. It is the law of the land. It is meant to be obeyed and enforced. As held by the Apex Court, construction in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Regulations is not to be viewed lightly and he who breaches its terms does so at his own peril. The fait accompli of constructions being made which are in the teeth of the Notification cannot present, but a highly vulnerable argument. We find that the view taken by the Kerala High Court in aforesaid decision is appropriate. Permission granted by the Panchayat was illegal and void. No such development activity could have taken place. In view of the findings of the Enquiry, Committee, let all the structures be removed forthwith within a period of one month from today and compliance be reported to this Court."

(vii) In State of Haryana v. Satpal18, it was held that the High Court

committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorized

occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of

market price and hence, it deserved to be quashed. The operative portion of the

judgment is reproduced below:

“19. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the unauthorised occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on payment of market price. Even the other directions issued by the High Court are not capable of being implemented, namely, to segregate the vacant land from the residential house and which can be separated and utilised for earmarked purpose i.e. school premises. The unauthorised construction is in such a manner and even some areas are not used for residential purpose and some of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not possible to segregate and separate the same, which can be used for school premises. There is no other panchayati land and/or other land, which is available, which can be used as school premises/playground. The adjacent land belongs to some private persons and they are not ready to part with their land to be used as school premises/playground.

18 (2023) 6 SCC 643 27

20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the directions issued (reproduced hereinabove) directing to legalise the unauthorised occupation and possession made by the original writ petitioners on the land, which is earmarked for school premises/playground is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, the original writ petitioners are granted 12 months’ time to vacate the land, which is occupied by them unauthorisedly and if within one year from today, they do not vacate the lands in question, the appropriate authority is directed to remove their unauthorised and illegal occupation and possession.”

(viii) Finally, in a recent decision in Re: Directions in the matter of

demolition of structures19, while determining a question whether the executive

should be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as a measure

for infliction of penalty on a person, who is accused in a crime under our

constitutional scheme, this Court has extensively analysed all the aspects and

issued certain directions to the authorities. The penultimate paragraphs read as

under:

“IX. DIRECTIONS

90. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution.

We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.

91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath,

19 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 28

abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.

A. NOTICE i. No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later.

ii. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question.

iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice.

iv. To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct that as soon as the show cause notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail should also be issued from the office of the Collector/District Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall designate a nodal officer and also assign an email address and communicate the same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge of building regulations and demolition within one month from today.

v. The notice shall contain the details regarding:

a. the nature of the unauthorized construction.

b. the details of the specific violation and the grounds of demolition. c. a list of documents that the noticee is required to furnish along with his reply. d. The notice should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority before whom the hearing will take place; vi. Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within 3 months from today wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available.

B. PERSONAL HEARING i. The designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned.

ii. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded.

C. FINAL ORDER i. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final order. ii. The final order shall contain:

a. the contentions of the noticee, and if the designated authority disagrees with the same, the reasons thereof;

b. as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor;

c. if the designated authority finds that only part of the construction is unauthorized/noncompoundable, then the details thereof.

29 d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available and other options like compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not available.

D. AN OPPORTUNITY OF APPELLATE AND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE FINAL ORDER.

i. We further direct that if the statute provides for an appellate opportunity and time for filing the same, or even if it does not so, the order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal as stated above. ii. An opportunity should be given to the owner/occupier to remove the unauthorized construction or demolish the same within a period of 15 days. Only after the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice has expired and the owner/occupier has not removed/demolished the unauthorized construction, and if the same is not stayed by any appellate authority or a court, the concerned authority shall take steps to demolish the same. It is only such construction which is found to be unauthorized and not compoundable shall be demolished. iii. Before demolition, a detailed inspection report shall be prepared by the concerned authority signed by two Panchas.

E. PROCEEDINGS OF DEMOLITION i. The proceedings of demolition shall be video-graphed, and the concerned authority shall prepare a demolition report giving the list of police officials and civil personnel that participated in the demolition process. Video recording to be duly preserved.

ii. The said demolition report should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also be displayed on the digital portal.

92. Needless to state that the authorities hereinafter shall strictly comply with the aforesaid directions issued by us.

93. It will also be informed that violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution.

94. The officials should also be informed that if the demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of this Court, the officer/officers concerned will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at his/their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.”

20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up

in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local 30

authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any

building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction

must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the

event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be

curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to

showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of illegalities,

administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and

investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in

performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to

defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions. That apart,

the State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of

regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is

unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it

causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on the

environment. Hence, regularization schemes must be brought out only in

exceptional circumstances and as a onetime measure for residential houses after

a detailed survey and considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on

the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water

bodies/rivers and larger public interest. Unauthorised constructions, apart from

posing a threat to the life of the occupants and the citizens living nearby, also

have an effect on resources like electricity, ground water and access to roads,

which are primarily designed to be made available in orderly development and 31

authorized activities. Master plan or the zonal development cannot be just

individual centric but also must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of

the public and the environment. Unless the administration is streamlined and

the persons entrusted with the implementation of the act are held accountable

for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature

would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are let scot-free,

they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a nelson’s eye to all the

illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution,

disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.

21. Therefore, in the larger public interest, we are inclined to issue the

following directions, in addition to the directives issued by this Court in Re:

Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (supra):

(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained

from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of

the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries

only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities

concerned.

(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction

site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the 32

authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a

record of such inspection in their official records.

(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is

constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and

there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the

completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial

building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without

causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in

accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation

certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are

completely rectified.

(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply,

sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the

buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any

contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority

immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with

law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible 33

for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded

departmentally forthwith.

(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any

authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any

unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial

building.

(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage.

Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly

following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and

the impact on the environment.

(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under the

planning department/local body for co-operation from another department to

take action against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall render

immediate assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be

viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the

erring officials once it is brought to their knowledge.

(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being filed by the owner

or builder against the non-issuance of completion certificate or for 34

regularisation of unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the

same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending

appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90

days as statutorily provided.

(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued by this court

and those being passed today, they would have deterrent effect and the quantum

of litigation before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building

constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions

should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of Circular to all

concerned with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously followed and

failure to do so will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being

initiated against the erring officials as per law.

(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a

security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a

building on production of the same by the parties concerned.

(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt

proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.

22. As far as the present case is concerned, we pass the following orders:

(i)The order of the High Court shall stand confirmed.

35 (ii)The appellants are directed to vacate and handover the vacant premises to the

respondent authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

(iii)On such surrender, the respondent authorities shall take steps to demolish

the unauthorised construction made on the subject property, within a period of

two weeks therefrom.

(iv)All the authorities shall provide necessary assistance to the Respondent No.1

to execute the order of the High Court in its letter and spirit.

(v)Appropriate criminal as well as departmental action shall be taken against the

erring officials / persons concerned in line with the order of the High Court and

a report shall be filed before this Court.

(vi)The amount deposited by the appellants in SLP (C)No. 36440 of 2014 be

refunded to them, along with accrued interest.

23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these appeals stand

dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall

stand disposed of.

…………………………J. [J.B. Pardiwala]

…………………………J. [R. Mahadevan] NEW DELHI DECEMBER 17, 2024.

36

NOTE:

1) The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to circulate a copy of this Judgment to the

Registrar General of all the High Courts, so as to enable the High Courts to refer

it, while considering the disputes relating to unauthorised construction,

deviation / violation of building permission, plan, etc.

2) The Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to circulate a copy of this Judgment

to the Chief Secretaries of all the States / Union Territories. All the State / UT

Governments shall issue circulars to all the local authorities / Corporations,

intimating them about the directions issued by this Court and for strict

compliance.