ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS CAN'T BE REGULARIZED DESPITE LONG OCCUPANCY: SUPREME COURT RULING
Category: Civil Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India recently pronounced a historic verdict indicating that illegality in illegal constructions cannot be legalized only by a long time of occupation of the building. This ruling has striking implications not only for urban planning and property law, but also for the enforcement of municipal regulations across the country.
BACKGROUND
A residential plot allotment by Avas Evam Vikas Parishad on 30.08.1986 was given to Mr. Veer Singh, and the possession was given on 15.06.1989. The property was then made residential in use by a freehold deed executed on 06.10.2004. However, the entire thing started by Veer Singh through his power of attorney agent constructing commercial buildings on the property without getting the necessary permission.
Veer Singh did not reply to the show-cause notices nor did he rectify the violations. Subsequently, a demolition order for unauthorized construction was passed by the Parishad. But this order could not be translated into action for want of cooperation from the local and police authorities.
The Parishad subsequently moved the High Court seeking writ, which was allowed on 05.12.2014. This decision is now challenged by the appellants who stake their claims to illegally built commercial shops in the property. The matter is now before the Supreme Court.
KEY POINTS
Prohibition on Regularization: The Supreme Court ruled that long term possession or occupation does not give any legal sanctity to unauthorized constructions. The Court also held that such a regularization would undermine the rule of law and badge violations.
Strict Compliance: The judgment reinforced the need for adhering to master planning, following building codes, and conforming to zoning regulations. The Court posited that unregulated development exposes the public to dangers, disturbs planned urban growth, and compromises environmental sustainability.
Municipal Authorities: The Supreme Court condemned the municipal entities for failing to carry out enforcement of building rules. The Supreme Court put on record facts showing that, in several instances, local administrators condoned or failed to take action against unauthorized constructions by the respective bodies.
Public Interest and Fairness: While the Court conceded that demolishing illegal constructions could displace people, it held that regularization would be unjust to the law-following and perpetuate systemic inequity.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court whereby all unauthorized commercial constructions on the property allotted to Mr. Veer Singh and meant for being used only as residential were directed to be demolished. It upheld that the unauthorized construction was in breach of the conditions of the freehold deed restricting the use of the property to residential. The Court clearly maintained that illegal constructions cannot be got regularized-however long the occupancy may be, notwithstanding the use for commerce after that, undermining the rule of law as well as the urban planning regulations. Such appeals which were filed against the shop owners were dismissed, and the court directed competent authorities to demolish the structures to comply with zoning and building norms, criticizing the local and police officials for failing to act for demolishing order. This judgment reiterates the principle that unauthorized constructions should not be legitimized under any conditions.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court ruling marks the most crucial mile in the journey towards an urban governance framework for India. The ruling reinforces the need for strict enforcement of development laws while sounding a caveat against all ad hoc regularizations that corrode public trust in the legal systems. Going forward, the focus must be on strengthening municipal oversight and creating mechanisms to prevent illegal constructions from emerging in the first place.
