Supreme Court stipulates demolition of illegal constructions: ‘Violation of directions will lead to contempt proceedings’, Read Judgment

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to planning laws and the need for strict action against unauthorized constructions. The Court emphasized:

"Unauthorized constructions without planning approval cannot be encouraged."

This statement highlights the Court's firm stance on illegal constructions and its commitment to ensuring urban development follows legal norms. The case revolved around the unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot in Meerut, which had been converted illegally without the necessary approvals.

Brief Facts:

The appellants appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 05.12.2014, filed by Respondent No.1. The petition sought a Writ of Mandamus to stop illegal commercial construction on residential plot No. 661/6, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, and enforce a demolition order dated 31.05.2011. The plot, allotted to Respondent No.5 in 1986 for residential use, was illegally converted for commercial purposes by Respondent No.5 and his agent, Respondent No.6, without approval.

Despite a demolition order in 2011, authorities failed to act due to lack of cooperation. Respondent No.1 filed the writ petition, which the High Court allowed. The Court directed demolition by December 2014, criminal proceedings against the responsible parties, and departmental actions. The appellants, owners of the unauthorized commercial shops, appealed the High Court’s decision.

The appellants argued that the shops existed for 24 years, with Respondent No.1 acknowledging the construction when converting the property to freehold in 2004. They purchased the shops legally and have been occupying them since then. However, without proper notice, Respondent No.1 sought demolition, which the appellants claimed was arbitrary and violated natural justice.

They contended the High Court should have explored the possibility of regularizing the construction instead of ordering demolition. They also argued that Respondent No.1 selectively targeted their property for demolition, despite similar constructions nearby. The appellants claimed the delay and negligence by Respondent No.1 prejudiced their rights, and they sought to have the High Court’s order overturned.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Contentions of the Respondent:

Respondent No.1, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, argued that the plot was allotted for residential use, but Respondent No.5 illegally constructed commercial shops without approval. Despite multiple notices, Respondent No.5 continued the unauthorized construction, leading to the demolition order. Respondent No.1 failed to enforce the demolition due to local authorities' lack of cooperation, prompting the writ petition.

Respondent No.1 claimed the appellants were aware of the illegal construction when purchasing the shops and had no right to be included in the proceedings. The violations were deliberate, and the appellants can seek damages from Respondent No.5. Respondent No.1 acted in accordance with its duties and is ready to assist in the demolition. The legal heirs of Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.6, who died during the case, did not appear.

The Court noted that on 17.12.2014, it granted an order of status quo for shop nos. 6 and 10, conditioned on the appellants depositing Rs. 10,00,000/- by 23.12.2014, which the appellants complied with. The deposit was placed in a Fixed Deposit with UCO Bank, maturing on 10.05.2025. Another status quo order was granted on 05.01.2015.

The appellants argued they had been using the shops for 24 years, but the Court highlighted that Respondent No.5's construction was unauthorized from the start, and Respondent No.1 failed to act before the demolition order. The Court stated that no violation of natural justice occurred and emphasized that the appellants should have verified the legal status of the property.

The Court reiterated in State of Haryana v. Satpal: "Directions to legalize unauthorized occupation are unsustainable and should be quashed."

The Court issued executive powers for demolition, stating:

• "These directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place like roads or water bodies..."
• "Violation of any directions will lead to contempt proceedings."
• "If demolition violates the Court's orders, the officer will be responsible for restitution at their personal cost."

The Court emphasized that unauthorized constructions "without planning approval cannot be encouraged" and called for strict action.

Further directions were issued to ensure builders obtain a completion certificate before possession and that developments conform with the zonal plan. The Court concluded that adherence to its directions would have a "deterrent effect" on unauthorized construction litigation.

The Court upheld the High Court's order, directing the appellants to vacate the premises within three months and for the unauthorized construction to be demolished within two weeks. Authorities were to assist in executing the demolition, and action was to be taken against responsible officials. The appellants' deposited amount, with interest, was to be refunded. The appeals were dismissed, with no order on costs.Top of FormBottom of Form

Read judgment @ latestlaws.com

Picture Source :