Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorised Construction, Rejects Regularisation Plea

Apex Court Upholds High Court's Strict Stance on Illegal Buildings

The Supreme Court of India has emphatically endorsed a High Court order mandating the demolition of unauthorised construction, dismissing a plea for regularisation and stressing that such violations must be dealt with using "iron hands." A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan , while hearing the petition filed by Kaniz Ahmed against Sabuddin & Ors., upheld the High Court's directions, praising its "courage and conviction" in tackling illegal structures through public interest litigation.

Background: High Court's Public Interest Order

The case stemmed from a High Court judgment which directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and police authorities to take decisive action against an unauthorised construction. The High Court had ordered: 1. Notice to occupants to vacate by April 30, 2025. 2. Eviction using police force by May 16, 2025, if occupants failed to vacate. 3. Demolition proceedings by KMC, supported by police, to be completed by June 19, 2025. 4. Videography of the entire eviction and demolition process at KMC's expense. 5. Inspection of neighbouring properties by KMC, with similar demolition directions applicable mutatis mutandis to any violations found after due notice.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated, "We are in complete agreement with what has been observed by the High Court in the above referred paragraphs."

Petitioner's Plea for Regularisation Rejected

The petitioner, Kaniz Ahmed , sought an opportunity to apply for the regularisation of the unauthorised construction, which reportedly involved two additional floors. The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected this plea.

> "We do not find any merit in such submission. A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out," the Court observed.

The bench further added, "Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law."

Reinforcing Strict Norms: Citing Precedents

The Court heavily relied on its recent pronouncement in * Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others * ( 2024 INSC 990 ), reiterating the need for scrupulous adherence to building rules. It highlighted key directions from the Rajendra Kumar Barjatya case, including: * Obtaining undertakings from builders not to hand over possession before obtaining completion/occupation certificates (OC). * Mandatory display of approved plans at construction sites. * Issuance of OC only after verifying compliance and rectifying deviations. * Provision of essential services (electricity, water, sewage) only after OC production. * Strict action against deviations even post-OC issuance. * Prohibition on granting business licenses in unauthorised buildings. * Ensuring development conforms to zonal plans. * Mandatory inter-departmental cooperation for enforcement. * Timely disposal (within 90 days) of appeals/applications related to OC or regularisation. * Requirement for banks/financial institutions to verify OC before sanctioning loans against property.

The Court warned that violations of these directions could lead to contempt proceedings. It also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in * Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi * ( W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 ) to underscore that the law should not protect those who disregard it, as doing so undermines the deterrent effect crucial for an orderly society.

Criticism of Regularisation Schemes

The Supreme Court expressed concern over state governments enacting laws that allow regularisation of unauthorised developments upon payment of impact fees.

> "We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees," the Court stated, emphasizing that Courts must adopt a strict approach and avoid "judicial regularisation."

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by Kaniz Ahmed , thereby confirming the High Court's demolition order. Significantly, the Registry was directed to circulate the order to all High Courts across the country, indicating the judgment's wide-ranging applicability and the Apex Court's intent to ensure uniform adherence to a strict policy against unauthorised constructions nationwide. The decision serves as a stern warning against flouting building regulations and reinforces the principle that illegal structures will face demolition without leniency.