 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment regarding unauthorized constructions and violations of building permissions, issuing a series of stringent directives aimed at curbing illegal development and holding accountable those responsible for its proliferation. The case stemmed from an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order mandating the demolition of unauthorized constructions in Meerut. The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that constructions deviating from approved building plans or erected without any permission are unacceptable and will be dealt with decisively. The court rejected arguments that delays in rectifying illegalities, administrative failures, construction costs, or official negligence should serve as justification for ignoring building regulations. The justices emphasized that leniency towards such violations would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the rule of law. This decisive stance underscores the court's commitment to upholding building codes and preventing the rampant growth of unauthorized structures which threaten public safety and urban planning.
The background of the case involved a property allotted in 1986, with a sale deed executed in 2004. However, this deed was based on a fabricated construction completion certificate. Subsequently, commercial shops were constructed without the necessary approvals, in direct violation of the deed's clause stipulating residential use only. Despite multiple show-cause notices, the illegal construction persisted, leading to a demolition order in 2011 that remained unexecuted due to lack of cooperation from local authorities. A writ petition was filed in the High Court, resulting in the order challenged in this Supreme Court appeal. The appellants, owners of the illegally constructed shops, argued that their livelihood would be affected by demolition and that the respondent authorities were aware of the construction for many years. They pleaded that the demolition order was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice due to the lack of prior notice. However, the Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence and determined that the construction was undeniably unauthorized and a violation of building regulations.
The court's assessment centered on the principle that estoppel cannot prevail against the law. The prolonged inaction of the authorities, potentially indicating collusion, did not grant any legal right to the appellants. The court invoked the doctrine of Caveat Emptor, emphasizing the buyer's responsibility to ascertain the title and any defects in the property. It also cited Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, highlighting the seller's duty to disclose material defects. The court concluded that both the buyers and the seller had failed to fulfill their legal obligations. The appellants' claim of lack of notice and violation of natural justice was dismissed as a weak legal defense. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, citing numerous precedents establishing that unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or administrative inaction. The court emphasized the gravity of unauthorized constructions, highlighting their impact on public safety, resource management, and environmental sustainability. It criticized the practice of state governments regularizing violations, suggesting that such schemes should be exceptional and carefully considered.
The Supreme Court issued twelve specific directions to streamline the process of building planning permissions, ensure accountability, and curb future violations. These directions include requiring an undertaking from builders regarding the issuance of completion certificates before possession is granted; mandatory display of approved plans at construction sites with periodic inspections; timely issuance of completion certificates with immediate action against deviations; the refusal of service connections to unauthorized buildings; departmental action against officials who issue certificates for buildings with deviations; prohibition of business licenses in unauthorized buildings; adherence to zonal plans and strict procedures for modifications; prompt inter-departmental cooperation in addressing unauthorized construction; expeditious disposal of appeals concerning completion certificates or regularization; issuance of government circulars to enforce compliance; and the requirement for banks to verify completion certificates before granting loans. The violation of any of these directions will result in contempt proceedings and prosecution under applicable laws.
The Supreme Court's decision to direct the demolition of the unauthorized constructions sends a powerful message about the consequences of violating building codes. The court emphasized its determination to prevent such violations in the future. The judgment also highlights the importance of accountability for both builders and officials who facilitate or overlook illegal construction. Furthermore, the court's directives address systemic issues that contribute to the problem, including the need for better inter-agency cooperation, efficient processing of applications, and more robust oversight of the construction industry. By directing the circulation of the judgment to High Courts and state governments, the Supreme Court aims for a widespread implementation of these measures and a significant reduction in unauthorized constructions nationwide. The emphasis on departmental action against erring officials indicates a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption and negligence in this area.