SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 487

ARUN MISHRA, B.R.GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI
M. C. Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the parties :Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.) Anitha Shenoy, (A.C.) A.D.N. Rao, Advocate (A.C.) Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Gurmeet Singh Makker, Suhasini Sen, Rajat Nair, Aman Gupta, Sanjiv Sen, Praveen Swarup, Amit Singh, Kanishik Chaudhary, Roy Dev, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Anil Grover, AAG, Haryana Dr. Monika Gusain, Noopur Singhal, Advocate Rahul Khurana, Advocate Sanjay Kumar Visen, Garima Prashad, Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhun, Alok Gupta, Vijay Panjwani, Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate on Record Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate Roohina Dua, Advocate Cheitanya Madan, Advocate Siddharth Luthra, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Roohe Hina Dua, Cheitanya Madan, Naveen Kumar, Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate Yashraj Singh Deora, Rahul Narayan, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate Sanjana Nangia, Abhilasha Bharti, Prerna Mehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Rachana Joshi Issar, Rahul Narayan, Jasbir Singh Malik, Usha Nandini V., M/s Saharya & Co. Prerna Mehta, Tileshwar Prasad, Naresh Aditya Madhav, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia , Ashutosh Kumar Sharma Bina Gupta, Petitioner(s)-in-Person B.V. Balram Das, Advocate Anil Katiyar, Advocate Praveen Swarup, Advocate Garima Prashad, Advocate D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate Naveen Kumar, Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate Rahul Narayan, Advocate Akriti Chaubey, Advocate Yashraj Singh Deora, Advocate Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate Aman Gupta, M/S. Saharya & Co., Mushtaq Ahmad, Usha Nandini. V, V. K. Verma, S. Chandra Shekhar, Prasanthi Prasad, Prakash Kumar Singh, Purnima Jauhari, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Abhinav Mukerji, Surya Kant, M/S. Law Associates, Prashant Bhushan, Petitioner(s)-in-person Hardeep Singh Anand, M. C. Dhingra, Manu Shanker Mishra, Prakash Kumar Singh, Mr Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Anupama Nagangom, Karun Sharma, P.B. Suresh, Karthik Jayshankar, Kshitez Kaushik, For M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, M. C. Dhingra, Mushtaq Ahmad, Praveen Swarup, Prashant Bhushan, Usha Nandini. V, Hardeep Singh Anand, Manu Shanker Mishra, Prakash Kumar Singh, Petitioner-in-person V. K. Verma, Aman Gupta, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, M/S. Parekh & Co., Prakash Kumar Singh, Pravir Choudhary, Md. Farman, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Sharmila Upadhyay, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Sanjeev Anand, Uttara Babbar, Abhay Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Sunil Kumar Jain, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Prashant Chaudhary, Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Praveen Swarup, P. Parmeswaran, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Devendra Singh, Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Nikilesh Ramachandran, D. N. Goburdhan, Abhijit Sengupta, Binu Tamta, T. L. Garg, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Surya Kant, Tarun Johri, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Ashwani Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, M/S. Law Associates, Sanjay Kapur, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Sudhir Naagar, Yashraj Singh Deora, A. Venayagam Balan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Shiv Prakash Pandey, B. V. Balaram Das, Manju Jetley, Harish Pandey, Shekhar Kumar, Abhinav Mukerji, Annam D. N. Rao, Satish Aggarwal, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Senthil Jagadeesan, Prasanthi Prasad, Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ajit Sharma, Prerna Mehta, Anu Gupta, Rukhsana Choudhury, M/S. Saharya & Co., Harsh V. Surana, Raj Kamal, Himinder Lal, Prashant Bhushan, M. P. Shorawala, Arvind Gupta, Abhas Kumar, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Milind Kumar, Kaveeta Wadia, Ajay Kumar Singh, Gagan Gupta, Yoginder Handoo, Jasmeet Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Akriti Chaubey , Prakash Ranjan Nayak, T. Mahipal, Garima Prashad, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Rahul Narayan, Alok Gupta, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajat Joseph, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Shekhar Prit Jha, Dr. Monika Gusain, S. S. Shroff, O. P. Bhadani, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ejaz Maqbool, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anand Mishra, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S. Janani, Ashok Anand, Karunakar Mahalik, Naveen R. Nath, Vishnu Sharma, M. M. Kashyap, A. Raghunath, K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Rajani Ohri Lal, Rakesh Mishra, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

  1. Right to Property: No individual can be deprived of their property or residence except in the manner prescribed by law. Deprivation must follow the specific procedures and modes established by relevant statutes (!) (!) (!) .

  2. Authority of Monitoring Committees: The Monitoring Committee, appointed by the court, is not authorized to take action concerning residential premises on private land that are not used for commercial purposes. Its jurisdiction is limited to overseeing unauthorized colonies, encroachments on public land, and illegal constructions on public or government land (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  3. Sealing and Demolition: The power to seal or demolish properties is conferred upon statutory bodies such as municipal corporations or development authorities under specific legislation. The Monitoring Committee's actions, especially concerning residential premises on private land not misused for commercial purposes, are not supported by statutory authority and are therefore illegal (!) (!) (!) .

  4. Due Process and Legal Procedures: Any deprivation of property or residence must adhere to the due process of law, including statutory appeals and adjudication under relevant laws. The Monitoring Committee cannot bypass these procedures or usurp statutory powers (!) (!) (!) .

  5. Scope of Court Orders: Court orders appointing Monitoring Committees have a limited scope, primarily focused on preventing misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes and illegal encroachments on public land. They do not extend to residential properties on private land used solely for residential purposes unless explicitly authorized (!) (!) (!) .

  6. Regularization and Legal Rights: Owners of properties used for residential purposes have the right to seek regularization under applicable laws and policies. The procedures for such regularization are laid down in statutes like the DMC Act, which provides for appeals and statutory remedies. These rights cannot be overridden arbitrarily by the Monitoring Committee (!) (!) (!) (!) .

  7. Enforcement of Laws: The enforcement of laws related to land use, construction, and property rights must be carried out by the statutory authorities in accordance with the law. Any action beyond their statutory powers, such as sealing residential premises not used for commercial purposes, is unlawful (!) (!) (!) .

  8. Constitutional Protections: Articles of the Constitution protect the right to property and residence, emphasizing that deprivation must be through lawful procedures. Any action that violates these protections without following prescribed legal processes is unconstitutional (!) (!) (!) .

  9. Limitations on Court-Directed Actions: Court orders cannot authorize actions that violate statutory rights or procedures. The court's role is to ensure lawful enforcement, not to permit arbitrary or extralegal measures (!) (!) .

  10. Importance of Legal Procedures and Appeals: Property owners have the right to legal remedies, including appeals under the relevant statutes. These remedies must be exhausted before any deprivation or demolition is carried out (!) (!) .

In summary, the document emphasizes that actions concerning property rights, including sealing or demolition, must be within the powers conferred by law, follow due process, and respect constitutional protections. The Monitoring Committee's actions outside these boundaries are deemed illegal and are liable to be quashed.


JUDGMENT :

ARUN MISHRA, J.

IN RE: ISSUE RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE

1. We are dealing with the authority of the “Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises on the private land” particularly when they are not being used for the “commercial purpose”. Whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises is the only question which we are examining in this order.

2. Report No.149 dated 2.4.2019 submitted by the Monitoring Committee concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedly carried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructions were not on public land. The respective persons owned the land, and the Committee had submitted that a letter was received from the SDM, Mehrauli on 22.2.2019 regarding unauthorized construction in Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

3. A reply was filed on behalf of the residents that various residential premises were sealed where constructions were made long back. There was no authority with the Monitoring Committee to seal purely residential premises. It was pointed out that their structure was in consonance with the Master Plan (MPD2021) within Low Density Residential Area (LDRA) modified vi


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top