Supreme Court Takes Hard Line on Unauthorised Constructions: Demolition Must Be the Rule, Not the Exception
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong message against unauthorised constructions, holding that courts must not legitimise illegal structures merely because municipal regulations allow compounding on payment of fees.
The observations were made while dismissing a petition challenging the demolition of unauthorised constructions in Secunderabad, Telangana. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Telangana High Court which had ordered the removal of illegal constructions raised without permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised that post-facto regularisation of illegal constructions defeats the rule of law and encourages rampant encroachment on public and private land.
Supreme Court’s Observations: Rule of Law Cannot Be Compromised
The apex court categorically held that demolition is the correct legal course where unauthorised constructions are raised, along with:
Recovery of demolition costs from the offender
Imposition of exemplary penalties
The Bench cautioned that if courts entertain pleas for regularisation merely because compounding provisions exist, it would lead to systematic abuse of planning laws.
The court observed:
“If we allow a petition like this, people will encroach upon even public roads and premises while citing some rule that it is compoundable and dragging the authorities in courts for decades.”
The court made it clear that compounding cannot become a shield for illegality and that courts must send a deterrent message that unauthorised constructions will not be tolerated.
Facts of the Dispute: Illegal Encroachment in a Cantonment Area
The dispute originated within an Army Welfare Cooperative Housing Society in Secunderabad.
The plaintiff, TGK Mahadev, alleged that the defendant, Amitesh Jeet Singh, had illegally occupied common open space in front of a dwelling unit.
The encroachment allegedly occurred when the plaintiff was outside India.
The defendant constructed an additional room and extended the roof area on all sides without obtaining any permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board.
The plaintiff contended that the illegal construction adversely affected his:
Right to air and ventilation
Right to light
Right to privacy
Easementary rights
The construction was also contrary to the approved layout plan of the housing society.
Findings of the Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court recorded crucial findings:
The defendant admitted to raising new constructions without prior permission.
The society’s bye-laws explicitly prohibited any alteration without approval from the competent authority.
The defendant had earlier given an affidavit undertaking not to make any construction in the open area.
The High Court rejected the defence that the dispute was purely between private individuals. It held that:
Illegal constructions violate statutory regulations
The Cantonment Board is a competent and aggrieved authority
Such constructions affect not only neighbours but also public planning norms
The High Court directed the defendant to remove the illegal construction within one month, failing which the Cantonment Board was authorised to act in accordance with law.
Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Compounding Argument
Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the construction was “compoundable” under applicable municipal rules.
The Bench firmly rejected this submission, observing:
“So, we should allow you to construct anything and then let you apply for compounding? That can’t be.”
The court reiterated that availability of compounding provisions does not confer a right to violate the law, nor does it prevent courts from ordering demolition of illegal structures.
Statutory Framework Governing the Case
Cantonments Act, 2006
Governs land use and construction within cantonment areas
Requires prior sanction from the Cantonment Board for any construction
Unauthorised constructions are liable to demolition
Municipal and Building Regulations
Planning laws mandate prior approval to ensure safety, uniformity, and public interest
Compounding provisions are discretionary, not mandatory
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Arbitrary regularisation of illegal constructions violates equality
Law-abiding citizens cannot be placed at a disadvantage vis-Ã -vis violators
Article 21 – Right to Life
Includes the right to a healthy environment
Unauthorised constructions affecting air, light, ventilation and privacy infringe this right
Rule of Law (Basic Structure Doctrine)
Regularising illegal acts erodes public confidence in governance
Courts are constitutionally bound to uphold legality
Key Judicial Precedents on Unauthorised Constructions
Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004)
The Supreme Court held that illegal constructions must be demolished and that regularisation encourages lawlessness.
Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2013)
The court ruled that unauthorised constructions cannot be protected on equitable grounds and must be dealt with strictly.
Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai (2013)
The Supreme Court observed that sympathy for violators undermines planned development and public interest.
M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999)
The court held that illegal constructions cannot be legitimised even if large investments have been made.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces several critical principles:
Compounding is not a licence to break the law
Courts must not legitimise illegality through equitable considerations
Demolition is a necessary deterrent against unauthorised constructions
Public authorities must act decisively, not passively
The judgment also aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent stance against “bulldozer justice” when arbitrary, while simultaneously reaffirming that lawful demolition of illegal structures after due process is constitutionally valid and necessary.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling sends an unambiguous message: unauthorised constructions will not be protected by courts, regardless of compounding provisions or delays in enforcement.
By affirming demolition, recovery of costs, and penal consequences, the court has reinforced the supremacy of planning laws and the constitutional mandate of the rule of law.
The judgment serves as a crucial precedent for urban governance, cantonment administration, and municipal authorities across India, signalling that illegality cannot be cured by convenience, compromise, or compensation.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment