1. Allotment of residential plot — Unauthorized commercial construction without sanction — Demolition order under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 — Challenge by third-party purchasers. (Para 3 , 5 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1199
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Barjatya And Another – Appellants
Versus
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.36440 of 2014)
With
Rajeev Gupta And Others – Appellants
Versus
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14605 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1184 of 2015)
Decided On : 17-12-2024
Important Points
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
Subject
Property Law - Unauthorized Construction
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.55(1)(a)
UTTAR PRADESH AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ADHINIYAM: S.3, S.7, S.8, S.82, S.83, S.92, S.93, S.94
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT: S.55(1)(a)
UTTAR PRADESH AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ADHINIYAM: S.3, S.7, S.8, S.82, S.83, S.92, S.93, S.94
Headnote
(A) U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - Sections 82 and 83 - Unauthorized construction - High Court directed demolition of unauthorized constructions on residential plot - Appellants contended lack of notice and violation of natural justice - Court held that unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction of authorities. (Paras 19, 22)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Applicability in demolition proceedings - Court emphasized that prior notice is essential but noted that the appellants were aware of the illegal constructions and failed to act. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, owners of shops constructed on a residential plot, challenged the High Court's order for demolition of unauthorized constructions, arguing lack of notice and violation of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was upheld, emphasizing that unauthorized constructions must be demolished regardless of time elapsed or prior knowledge of authorities.
Issues: Whether the High Court's order violated principles of natural justice and if the appellants had rights over the unauthorized constructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction, and the appellants' claims were unfounded as they were aware of the illegal status of the constructions.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Applicability in demolition proceedings - Court emphasized that prior notice is essential but noted that the appellants were aware of the illegal constructions and failed to act. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, owners of shops constructed on a residential plot, challenged the High Court's order for demolition of unauthorized constructions, arguing lack of notice and violation of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was upheld, emphasizing that unauthorized constructions must be demolished regardless of time elapsed or prior knowledge of authorities.
Issues: Whether the High Court's order violated principles of natural justice and if the appellants had rights over the unauthorized constructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction, and the appellants' claims were unfounded as they were aware of the illegal status of the constructions.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Surender Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Graga, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garg, Adv. Mr. Sandip Singh, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Suryansh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Anamika Yadav, Adv. Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sandip Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garg, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Surender Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Graga, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garg, Adv. Mr. Sandip Singh, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Suryansh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Anamika Yadav, Adv. Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sandip Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garg, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Third-party buyers claim lack of notice, violation of natural justice, and delay/laches — Authority asserts illegal usage and failure of buyers to verify title. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Unauthorized construction cannot be legitimized by passage of time or administrative failure — Buyers must exercise due diligence under the doctrine of caveat emptor. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Illegal constructions in violation of planning laws must be demolished; no estoppel exists against statutory law or for the benefit of unauthorized constructions. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 )
5. High Court order confirmed — Unauthorized constructions ordered to be demolished — Criminal and departmental action directed against erring officials. (Para 22 )
6. Does the passage of time or inaction by authorities legitimize an unauthorized construction?
No. Illegal constructions cannot be legitimized or protected by the passage of time, administrative failure, or investment. Such constructions must be demolished to ensure planned development and the rule of law. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 )
7. Must authorities issue separate notices to third-party purchasers of unauthorized constructions before demolition?
Not necessarily, if the construction is patently illegal. Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, buyers are responsible for verifying the permissible use and existence of sanctions for a property before purchase. (Para 16 )
8. Can a party plead estoppel against the demolition of unauthorized construction due to the authority's prior inaction?
No. There is no estoppel against law. Lapses by authorities do not vest a right in any person to maintain construction in violation of statutory planning approvals. (Para 15 )
9. Under what circumstances can unauthorized constructions be regularized?
Regularization should only occur in exceptional circumstances as a one-time measure for residential houses, following a detailed survey considering the nature of land, environmental impact, and larger public interest. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT :
(R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenging the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1[Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”] in Writ-C.No.46342 of 2013, the appellants herein, who are third parties to the proceedings, have preferred the present appeals.
3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to stop the illegal/unauthorized commercial construction on residential plot no.661/6, Shastri Nagar Yojna No.7, Meerut, and to provide police force to execute the order of demolition dated 31.05.2011 passed by the competent authority viz., Executive Engineer, Construction Division-8, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Sector 9, Shastri Nagar, Meerut.
4. By the judgment and order impugned herein, the High Court allowed the above writ petition with the following directions and observations:
(a) The District Magistrate, Meerut and the Senior Superintendent of Police Meerut shall remain present on the date and time to be notified by the petitioner-Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for the purposes of demolition of unauthorized constructions. Such demolitions must be effected on or before 31st December, 2014.
(b) Criminal proceedings should be launched against respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as against the officers, who were In-charge of the office of Awas Vikas Parishad at the relevant time including the Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer when these constructions had come up.
(c) The Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow shall ensure that the departmental proceedings are also initiated against the officers of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad responsible for the situation, which has been created. The Housing Commissioner shall also ensure that all like nature of unauthorized constructions are similarly dealt with without any discrimination and without any favourtism. For the purpose, he shall ensure that the highest officer posted in the office of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad at Meerut is made personally responsible for giving notice to the owner/persons in possession of the unauthorized occupations. The proceedings must be decided and appropriate action be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There should be no complaint to this Court that any person has been treated favourably in the matter of demolition of the unauthorized constructions.
(d) We also direct the Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow to ensure that the district authorities at Meerut are responded to the request of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in the matter of demolition with all promptness and with full force.
(e) We make it clear that all unauthorized constructions have to be dealt with in same manner.”
5. At the outset, it is imperative to note the relevant background facts leading to the present litigation. The Respondent No.5 by name, Veer Singh was originally allotted a plot bearing No.661/6, situated in Bhoomi Vikas, Grisathan Yojna No.7, Sector No.6, Phase-1, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P.2[Hereinafter shortly referred to as the “subject property”] by the Respondent No.1 on 30.08.1986. Possession was also handed over to him on 15.06.1989. In respect of the subject property, the Respondent No.1 executed a freehold deed dated 06.10.2004 in favour of the Respondent No.5 with specific condition that the property shall be used only for residential purposes. Contrary to the same, the Respondent No.5 with the assistance of his power of attorney agent by name, Vinod Arora i.e., Respondent No.6, started raising illegal commercial construction on the subject property without obtaining any sanction/approval from the Respondent No.1. Though show cause notices were issued to him, he neither responded to the same nor took any steps against the illegal construction, which compelled the competent authority to pass the order of demolition of the illegal/unauthorized construction on the subject propert
