Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ,JJ.
Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Others – Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7934 of 2012 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 33471 of 2011) With Civil Appeal No. 7935 Of 2012 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 33601 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 7936 of 2012 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 33940 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 7937 of 2012 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 35402 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 7938 of 2012 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 35324 of 2011 Transferred Case (Civil) No. 55 of 2012
Decided On : 27-02-2013
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 142 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - MRTP Act, 1966 - Section 46 - Rule, Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of Promotion Construction Rules, 1964 - Interest or claim - Planned development of areas - Provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity all cities big small and those entrusted with task of ensuring implementation of master plan etc have miserably failed to perform their duties - It is highly regrettable this is so despite the fact that this Court has keeping in view imperatives of preserving ecology and environment of the area and protecting rights of citizens repeatedly cautioned concerned authorities against arbitrary regularization of illegal constructions by way compounding and otherwise - In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa this Court examined correctness of an order passed by Orissa High Court negating the appellant’s right to be heard in a petition filed by the builder who had raised the building in violation of the sanctioned plan –Held, provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all cities big or small and those entrusted with task of ensuring implementation of master plan have miserably failed to perform their duties - It is highly regrettable that this is so despite this Court has keeping in view imperatives of preserving ecology and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens repeatedly cautioned concerned authorities against arbitrary regularization of illegal constructions by way of compounding and otherwise - In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa this Court examined correctness of an order passed by Orissa High Court negating appellant’s right to be heard in petition filed by builder who had raised the building in violation of sanctioned plan - While upholding the appellant’s plea two-Judge Bench obligation remains unfettered because concept of develop ability has to be harmoniously read with concept of registration of society and conveyance of title - Once entire project is placed before flat takers time of agreement then promoter is not required to obtain prior consent of the flat takers as long as the builder puts additional construction in accordance with layout plan building rules and Development Control Regulations case have failed make out case for directing respondents to regularize the construction made in violation of sanctioned plan - Rather ratio of above-noted judgments and in particular Royal Paradise Hotel - State of Haryana and Ors (supra) clearly attracted in present case Court would like to reiterate that no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan - Courts are also expected refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularization of illegal and unauthorized constructions else it would encourage violators of planning laws and destroy very idea and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas – Appeal dismissed
Judgment :-
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. In last five decades, the provisions contained in various municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring implementation of the master plan, etc., have miserably failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so despite the fact that this Court has, keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the ecology and environment of the area and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the concerned authorities against arbitrary regularization of illegal constructions by way of compounding and otherwise. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733, this Court examined the correctness of an order passed by the Orissa High Court negating the appellant’s right to be heard in a petition filed by the builder who had raised the building in violation of the sanctioned plan. While upholding the appellant’s plea, the two-Judge Bench observed:
“………Builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge in deviations much to the prejudice of the planned development of the city and at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large. Serious threat is posed to ecology and environment and, at the same time, the infrastructure consisting of water supply, sewerage and traffic movement facilities suffers unbearable burden and is often thrown out of gear. Unwary purchasers in search of roof over their heads and purchasing flats/apartments from builders, find themselves having fallen prey and become victims to the designs of unscrupulous builders. The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorised constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. Though the local authorities have the staff consisting of engineers and inspectors whose duty is to keep a watch on building activities and to promptly stop the illegal constructions or deviations coming up, they often fail in discharging their duty. Either they don't act or do not act promptly or do connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations. If such activities are to stop some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations. The unwary purchasers who shall be the sufferers must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders………….
The conduct of the builder in the present case deserves to be noticed. He knew it fully well what was the permissible construction as per the sanctioned building plans and yet he not only constructed additional built-up area on each floor but also added an additional fifth floor on the building, and such a floor was totally unauthorised. In spite of the disputes and litigation pending he parted with his interest in the property and inducted occupants on all the floors, including the additional one. Probably he was under the impression that he would be able to either escape the clutches of the law or twist the arm of the law by some manipulation. This impression must prove to be wrong.
In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners are to so
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.