Illegal constructions can’t be regularised irrespective of long occupancy & investments: SC

19/12/2024

NEW DELHI, Dec 18: The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.
"we are of the opinion that constru-ction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local 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.", the Court said.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to demolish structures purchased by the appellants. The shops and commercial spaces had been illegally constructed by Respondent No. 5 and 6 on land allotted by Respondent No. 1, the U.P. Housing and Development Board, without obtaining the required approvals.
The appellant challenged the demolition order on grounds of long-standing occupancy and alleged lapses by the authorities in not sending prior notices to the appellant.
Respondent No.1 argued that the construction was in blatant violation of residential zoning and lacked statutory approvals. It informed that several notices were issued to the original allottee (Respondent No.5 and 6) and the Appellant, but no corrective action was taken. According to them, delay and inaction do not validate illegal constructions.
Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan emphasized that illegal constructions cannot be permitted to thrive in blatant violation of mandatory legal provisions. The Court further noted that prolonged occupancy, financial investment, and authority's inaction do not legitimize unauthorized structures.
"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 Court said.
"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.", the court added.
Officers Cannot Be Let Scot-Free, Actions To Be Taken Against Erring Officials Providing Building Permissions In Violation Of Law
Although, the court noted that inaction on the part of the officials would not let the unauthorized construction become lawful but gave a warning to the officials responsible for the issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate who shall be proceeded with departmental proceedings forthwith.
"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.", the Court said.
"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 for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith.", the court added.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Mr. S. Singh,Adv. Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv. Ms. Anamika Yadav, Adv. Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty