SC Upholds Strict Enforcement Against Unauthorized Constructions

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767], dated December 17, 2024, reiterated its unwavering stance on unauthorized constructions, emphasizing that such structures cannot be legitimized, irrespective of their age, monetary investments, or administrative delays.

The dispute originated in 1986 when an individual, Veer Singh (the “Respondent No. 5”) was allotted and handed over possession of a residential plot in Meerut, UP, by the U.P. Housing and Development Board (the “Respondent No. 1″). Contrary to the conditions of the allotment, which explicitly restricted the use of the property to residential purposes, Respondent No. 5 commenced the construction of commercial shops in 1990 on the allotted plot without obtaining the requisite approvals. Despite several notices issued by the competent authority under Section 83 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, the unauthorized construction continued unabated. The owners of the commercial shops (the “Appellants”), who had registered sale deeds of the shops in their name, contended that they were unaware of the violations and alleged that the demolition order obtained by Respondent No. 1 was passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad without adequate notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

The apex court, dismissing these arguments, upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision directing the demolition of the unauthorized structures. The court firmly asserted that illegal constructions, irrespective of the investment made or the duration of their existence, cannot be regularized or protected. Unauthorized structures undermine the very fabric of urban planning, disrupt public resources, and pose risks to safety and the environment. It was further observed that despite the issuance of multiple notices over the years, Respondent No. 5 failed to take corrective measures or halt the illegal construction. It held that the inaction of authorities or prolonged delay in enforcement does not confer legitimacy upon illegal constructions. The Supreme Court emphasized the doctrine of caveat emptor, noting that the appellants, as purchasers, were obligated to exercise due diligence to ascertain the legality of the property before acquiring it. Failure to do so precludes any claim to immunity from enforcement actions.

Further, the court articulated that violations of zoning laws and building regulations strain essential public resources, including electricity, groundwater, and infrastructure, which are allocated based on lawful development. Unauthorized constructions erode public confidence in regulatory frameworks and embolden further violations. The court stressed that leniency in dealing with such infractions would amount to “misplaced sympathy” and create a dangerous precedent, undermining the rule of law.

Additionally, the judgment further delved into the accountability of administrative authorities, noting that their failure to act promptly against unauthorized construction often signals collusion or negligence. The court therefore instructed that officials who permitted or ignored such violations should face both criminal and departmental action. It also cautioned against the issuance of wrongful completion or occupation certificates and directed immediate rectification of any deviations from approved plans. The court noted that laxity by officials contributes to unchecked violations, disorderly urban development, and broader societal harm, including traffic disruptions, security risks, and environmental degradation.

Addressing the broader implications of unauthorized constructions, the apex court also declared that regularization schemes must be exceptional and confined to residential properties after a thorough assessment of environmental and public interest considerations. It highlighted that such schemes, if overutilized, incentivize lawlessness and compromise orderly urban development. The court also emphasized that master plans and zoning regulations must prioritize public welfare and environmental sustainability over individual interests.

The judgment additionally outlined a comprehensive framework to curb unauthorized constructions. Builders must provide undertakings ensuring that possession of buildings is handed over only after obtaining valid completion or occupation certificates. Authorities are mandated to conduct periodic inspections during construction and maintain records to ensure compliance. All service connections, including electricity and water supply, are to be contingent upon the production of valid certificates. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India prohibited the issuance of trade or business licenses for unauthorized constructions and directed banks to verify compliance before sanctioning loans against such properties.

This ruling sets a strong precedent against illegal constructions across the country. It serves as a reminder that legal compliance is paramount and any unauthorized development risks demolition, irrespective of financial or emotional investments. The decision serves as a definitive precedent, reinforcing the principle that the rule of law must prevail over expediency or convenience, ensuring the integrity of urban development frameworks, and safeguarding the public interest.