1. Unauthorized structural changes to a building — Challenge to demolition orders — Dispute over service of notice. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1992 Supreme(SC) 869
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand : M.N.Venkatachaliah
Syed Muzaffar Ali
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
Case No. : 1411 , 1420 of 1992
Date of Decision : 11/30/92
Unauthorized construction or departure from an authorized plan does not automatically justify demolition. Demolition is an extreme measure for grave breaches; otherwise, authorities should consider if the construction is compoundable or can be regularized based on the nature of the transgression.
Headnote:(A) Building Regulations - Unauthorized construction - Demolition - Mere departure from authorized plan or construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure - Nature of transgressions to be considered - Some constructions may be amenable to compounding while grave and serious breaches of licensing provisions or building regulations may call for demolition. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged orders regarding structural changes made to a building, contending that such changes did not amount to construction and that no notice had been served prior to the impugned orders.
Findings of Court:
The court found that service of notice was effected and, relying on an engineer's report, held that the structural changes constituted unauthorized constructions.
Issues: Whether the structural changes amounted to unauthorized construction, whether proper notice was served, and whether unauthorized construction automatically justifies demolition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the constructions were unauthorized, demolition is not the inevitable result of every departure from an authorized plan. The authorities must consider the nature of the breach to determine if the construction is compoundable or if the breach is serious enough to warrant demolition.
Result: The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Structural changes not amounting to construction — Lack of service of notice prior to issuance of impugned orders. (Para 2 )
3. Service of notice was properly effected — Structural changes, by nature and extent, constitute unauthorized constructions. (Para 3 )
4. Departure from authorized plans or construction without sanction does not ipso facto justify demolition; the remedy depends on the nature and gravity of the breach. (Para 4 )
5. Special leave petitions dismissed — Petitioners permitted to seek regularization or compounding within one week — Temporary stay of demolition granted for one week. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Does every unauthorized construction or departure from a sanctioned plan inevitably lead to demolition?
No. The mere departure from an authorized plan or construction without sanction does not automatically justify demolition. The decision depends on whether the breach is grave or if the construction is amenable to compounding. (Para 4 )
7. Can a party seek regularization of unauthorized construction after the dismissal of a legal challenge against demolition?
Yes. The dismissal of petitions does not prevent authorities from examining and granting relief, such as regularization or compounding, provided the petitioners apply and indicate the nature and extent of the unauthorized constructions. (Para 5 )
8. How is the determination made whether structural changes constitute unauthorized construction?
The court may rely on technical reports from designated officials, such as an Assistant Engineer-cum-Commissioner, to determine if the nature and extent of structural changes constitute unauthorized constructions. (Para 3 )
(1) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(2) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the structural changes brought about by the petitioners in respect of the building do not amount to construction and that, at all events, no notice had been served on them before the impugned orders were made.
(3) WE reject both the contentions. There is no justification to hold that service was not effected. As to the nature and extent of structural changes, the tribunal relied upon the report of Sri V. P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer-cum- Commissioner to reach the finding that the structural changes brought about, having regard to their nature and extent, did constitute constructions unauthorisedly made. We, therefore, find no merit in the special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
(4) HOWEVER, it is to be pointed out that the mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure. There are cases and cases of such unauthorised constructions. Some are amenable to compounding and some may not be. There may be cases off grave and serious breaches of the licensing provisions or building regulations that may call for the extreme step of demolition.
(5) THESE are matters for the authorities to consider at the appropriate time having regard to nature of the transgressions. It is open to the petitioners to move the authorities for such relief as may be available to them at law. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a plan indicating the nature and extent of the unauthorised constructions carried out and seek regularisation, if such regularisation is permissible. The dismissal of the petitions will not stand in the way of the authorities examining and granting such relief as the petitioners may be entitled to under law. The petitioners may move the authorities in this behalf within one week for such compounding or regularisation and also for stay of demolition pending consideration of their prayer. During the period of one week from today, however, no demolition shall be made.
(6) THE special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
