Unauthorized construction, if illegal, cannot be compounded and must be demolished. The judgment emphasized the need for planned development of cities and the responsibility of officials to prevent unauthorized constructions.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

I would preface this judgment by referring to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others (2013) 5 SCC 336 in connection with illegal and unauthorized construction of buildings and other structures which read thus:-

“8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multi-storied structure raised by economically affluent people. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors.

9. We have prefaced disposal of this appeal by taking cognizance of the precedents in which this Court held that there should be no judicial tolerance of illegal and unauthorized constructions by those who treat the law to be their sub-servient, but are happy to note that the functionaries and officers of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) have been extremely vigilant and taken steps for enforcing the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short, ‘the 1980 Act’) and the rules framed thereunder for demolition of illegal construction raised by respondent No.7. This has given a ray of hope to the residents of Kolkata that there will be zero tolerance against illegal and unauthorised constructions and those indulging in such activities will not be spared.”

2. Similar sentiments have been expressed earlier to this decision, some of which shall be referred to during the course of this judgment.

3. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the petitioner was allotted by the respondents HIG Plot No. 18, measuring 113.12 square metres in Housing Colony at Nahan under the Hire Purchase Basis vide allotment letter dated 30.03.2002 on as is where is basis. Pursuant to this, a Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement came to be executed between the parties on 13.06.2002 and possession thereafter was delivered to the petitioner on 11.07.2002. A conveyance deed with respect to the plot was subsequently executed on 27.09.2004. On 18.10.2005, the petitioner received a communication from the Assistant Engineer of the respondent wherein it was stated that the petitioner had encroached upon 47.49 square metres by way of roof projection and was directed to remove the same. In response to the same, the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.2005 tried to justify why he had encroached upon the land on the ground that by encroaching the land he has only protected the possession and further prayed that his case of encroachment may be considered for the same as with that of the other encroachments which had been regularized by the respondents after permitting such encroachers to purchase the said area. The respondents did not accede to such request and instead issued a notice under Section 4 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act and thereafter filed a petition for ejectment of encroached land under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 which was allowed by the Collector and the appeal file