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

2025 Supreme(SC) 756

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Kaniz Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
Sabuddin & Ors. – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12199-12200 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Saurabh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Arya, Adv. Mr. Abdul Hamid Molla, Adv. Mr. Ritik Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorised Constructions – Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to rules and regulations – Unauthorised construction has to be demolished – There is no way out – Courts are not free from statutory fetters – Courts must adopt strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of competent authority.

Headnote:

Building Bye-laws – Unauthorised Constructions – Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to rules and regulations – In the event of any violation being brought to notice of courts, same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy – A person who has no regards for law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors – This has something to do with rule of law – Unauthorised construction has to be demolished – There is no way out – Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency – Courts are not free from statutory fetters – Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law – Courts must adopt strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of competent authority – Need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon Courts to uphold rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate well-being of all concerned – Law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing culture of impunity. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:

Matter pertains to removal of unauthorised constructions which are rampant in cities.

Findings of Court:

If law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.

Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The High Court in Paras 21 and 22 of its impugned judgment and order has observed thus:-

    “21. Therefore, the police authorities are directed to give notice to all the occupants to vacate the premises by themselves by April 30, 2025. If any of them still continued to remain in occupation, they shall be evicted by deployment of adequate police force and such process shall be completed by not later than May 16, 2025. After the three floors are vacated, the KMC authority shall initiate demolition proceedings for which also the police authorities shall deploy adequate police force and such demolition shall be completed and a report be filed before this Court supported by photographs on June 19, 2025. During the process of vacating the occupants of the building as well as during the process of demolition, the entire events shall be videographed and such cost shall be borne by KMC.

    22. Needless to state that this writ petition being a public interest litigation, it goes without saying that not only the construction, which has been put up by the private respondents is to be dealt with, but the KMC authority should also cause inspection of all the neighbouring properties and if any violation is found, the above directions will apply mutatis mutandis to such constructions as well. Of course, action be taken after issuing notice to the owners/occupants of those properties”.

3. We are in complete agreement with what has been observed by the High Court in the above referred paragraphs.

4. We admire the courage and conviction with which the High Court has proceeded to take care of unauthorised construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public interest.

5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions:

    “(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

    (ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.

    (iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

    (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.

    (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the n

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 Back to top