A writ petition seeking demolition of unauthorized construction is procedurally deficient if the current owners or occupants of the property are not impleaded as necessary parties, as their civil rights would be directly affected by the outcome.

ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court espousing, inter alia, inaction on the part of the respondents – State authorities in taking action against the respondent No.6 for illegal construction.

[2] At the very threshold, learned advocate Mr. Ashwin Bhatt appearing for the petitioner has, with considerable emphasis, contended that the construction undertaken by respondent No. 6 is ex facie contrary to the applicable General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) and has been carried out in the absence of due sanction or lawful authorization from the competent authority. It is further urged that such unauthorized and irregular construction has materially prejudiced the petitioner, who is in occupation of the adjoining premises, inasmuch as the same has resulted in substantial obstruction to the free ingress of natural light and ventilation, thereby adversely affecting the petitioner’s right to enjoy the property in a reasonable and lawful manner.

[3] Upon a specific query being put by this Court as to whether all occupants and owners of the flats situated in the subject constructed premises ought to be impleaded as parties to the present proceedings, learned advocate Mr. Ashwin Bhatt appearing for the petitioner, with considerable vehemence, submitted that such persons do not constitute necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the dispute at hand. It was emphatically contended that the controversy raised in the present petition can be adequately and conclusively determined in their absence, and that the presence or participation of the said residents and flat owners is neither indispensable nor essential for the purpose of granting the reliefs as prayed for.

[4] Having given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid aspects, it prima facie emerges that respondent No. 6 is the developer/builder who has undertaken the construction of the entire scheme comprising the subject flats, which have subsequently been alienated in favour of various purchasers. It is an admitted position that the occupants and/or owners presently residing in the said flats alleged to be unauthorized and liable to demolition have not been impleaded as parties to the present proceedings.

[4.1] In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that any order or direction issued in favour of the petitioner, particularly one entailing adverse consequences such as demolition or alteration of the subject construction, would have a direct and substantial bearing on the rights, interests, and possession of such occupants and owners. These persons, whose civil rights are likely to be affected, are conspicuously absent from the array of parties and, therefore, are not before this Court to present their case or defend their interests. The non-joinder of such necessary and proper parties, in the opinion of this Court, renders the present proceedings procedurally deficient for the purpose of granting the reliefs as prayed for.

[4.2] Apart from the above, having regard to the nature of the controversy and the reliefs sought, this Court is further of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious and appropriate alternative remedy available in law. The petitioner may, if so advised, institute a substantive civil suit before the competent Civil Court, wherein all concerned and necessary parties can be duly impleaded, thereby enabling a comprehensive and adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law.

[5] In view of the aforesaid, present petition is not entertained and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.