Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Illegal Construction in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Case (17 December 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 990

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can a property owner build commercial shops on a plot designated for residential use? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The court upheld the High Court’s decision to demolish illegal commercial constructions, reinforcing the importance of adhering to approved land use plans. This judgment highlights the legal consequences of unauthorized construction and the responsibilities of both builders and authorities.

Case Background

The case revolves around a plot of land in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, originally allotted to Veer Singh (Respondent No. 5) by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Respondent No. 1) on 30 August 1986. Possession was given on 15 June 1989. The land was specifically designated for residential purposes. However, Veer Singh, with the assistance of his power of attorney agent, Vinod Arora (Respondent No. 6), began constructing commercial shops on the property without obtaining the necessary approvals. Despite receiving show-cause notices, they continued the construction. This led to a demolition order by the competent authority on 31 May 2011. However, the demolition order was not executed due to lack of cooperation from local and police authorities. The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, unable to execute the demolition order of 31 May 2011 due to lack of cooperation from local authorities, filed Writ Petition No. 46342 of 2013 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 5 December 2014, directing the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, to ensure the demolition of unauthorized constructions by 31 December 2014. The High Court also ordered the initiation of criminal proceedings against the original allottee (Respondent No. 5), his power of attorney agent (Respondent No. 6), and the officers of the Avas Vikas Parishad who were in charge when the constructions came up. Additionally, the Chief Secretary of U.P. was directed to initiate departmental proceedings against the responsible officers and ensure that all similar unauthorized constructions are dealt with uniformly.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. Specifically, Section 83 of the Act empowers the competent authority to remove unauthorized constructions. The Act establishes the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad as an autonomous body responsible for planned development and housing in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolves around the violation of land use regulations, where a residential plot was used for commercial purposes without proper authorization. The Supreme Court also considered the principles of natural justice, particularly in the context of whether the appellants, as third-party purchasers, should have been given a hearing before the demolition order was passed. The court also took into account the Transfer of Property Act, particularly Section 55, which deals with the rights and obligations of buyers and sellers.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The shops have existed for 24 years, and the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was aware of the construction from its inception. The Parishad converted the property from leasehold to freehold on an “as is where is basis,” accepting the existing construction.

• The appellants purchased the shops through registered sale deeds for valuable consideration and depend on them for their livelihood.

• The demolition order was passed without issuing notice to the appellants, violating the principles of natural justice. The appellants relied on the case of Municipal Corporation , Ludhiana v. Inderjeet Singh [(2008) 13 SCC 506], where demolition was ordered without proper notice.

• The High Court should have directed authorities to explore regularizing the construction before ordering demolition.

• The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad failed to keep pace with development, leading to the proliferation of commercial establishments in the area. They adopted a pick-and-choose policy, targeting only the subject property for demolition.

• The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad’s right to seek demolition is barred by delay and laches, and they acted negligently and in collusion with dishonest builders.

• The State Government failed to exercise its control over the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, jeopardizing the appellants’ rights.

Respondents’ Arguments (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad):

• The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is a statutory body responsible for planned development. The plot was allotted for residential purposes, and commercial construction was illegal.

• The original allottee, Veer Singh, made unauthorized construction without any sanction. The Parishad issued several notices to stop the construction, but he did not comply.

• The freehold conversion was based on a fabricated construction completion certificate.

• The Parishad was not informed about the change of interest in the property. The appellants were aware of the unauthorized construction when they purchased the shops.

• The appellants’ rights were created due to the unauthorized construction, which was never approved by the Parishad.

• The violations were deliberate and not marginal. Regularization is only possible after complying with all legal requirements.

• The appellants have a remedy to sue the original allottee for return of money or damages.

• The Parishad has allotted commercial properties through auction and has not failed in its duty to provide planned development.

• An illegal act does not become legal due to the passage of time.

Respondents’ Arguments (State Authorities):

• The State authorities supported the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and were ready to provide assistance for the demolition.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in ordering the demolition of the unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not issuing notice to the appellants before ordering demolition.
3. Whether the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad’s right to demolish the construction was barred by delay and laches.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 83, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: Empowers the competent authority to remove unauthorized constructions.
• Section 55(1)(a), Transfer of Property Act: Defines the obligations of the seller and buyer regarding defects in property.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the authorities to reinforce its reasoning:

• Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v. Inderjeet Singh [(2008) 13 SCC 506]* was distinguished, because in the present case, the original allottee was given notice.
• K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council [(1974) 2 SCC 506]* was followed to emphasize the statutory duties of public bodies and that illegalities cannot be validated by acquiescence.
• Dr. G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others [(1995) 5 SCC 762]* was followed to highlight the need to punish delinquent officers who allow illegal constructions.
• M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [(1999) 6 SCC 464]* was followed to reiterate that unauthorized constructions must be dismantled.
• Esha Ekta Apartments Coop Housing Society Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai [(2013) 5 SCC 357]* was followed to emphasize that courts should not encourage violations of planning laws.
• Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others [(2021) 10 SCC 1]* was followed to reiterate that illegal constructions must be dealt with strictly.
• Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority vs. Maradu Municipality [(2021) 16 SCC 822]* was followed to emphasize that illegal constructions cannot be permitted to remain.
• State of Haryana v. Satpal [(2023) 6 SCC 643]* was followed to reiterate that illegal occupation cannot be legalized.
• Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291]* was followed to reiterate the directions for demolition to ensure fair process.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The deliberate and blatant nature of the unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot.
• The failure of the original allottee to obtain necessary sanctions and approvals.
• The lack of cooperation from local authorities in executing the demolition order.
• The need to uphold the rule of law and ensure planned development.
• The principle that illegal constructions cannot be legitimized by the passage of time or inaction of authorities.
• The need to hold authorities accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The following table shows the ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision:

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the long existence of the shops legitimized the illegal construction, stating that “An illegal act, more so, when it was done deliberately, does not become legal only because certain length of time has passed.” The court also noted that “the registration of the property would not in any way amount to regularizing the unauthorized construction.” The court emphasized that “unauthorized construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished.”

The court found that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice because the original allottee was given notice, and the appellants should have verified the legality of the construction before purchasing. The court also noted that some notices were issued after the appellants had come into occupation of the premises.

The court rejected the argument that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad’s right to demolish was barred by delay and laches, finding that the Parishad had issued notices since 1990, and the delay was due to lack of cooperation from local authorities.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that illegal constructions cannot be perpetuated, and that authorities must take strict action against such violations. The court also highlighted the need for authorities to be held accountable for their failure to perform their statutory obligations.

Key Takeaways

• Strict Adherence to Land Use Regulations: Property owners must strictly adhere to land use regulations and obtain necessary approvals before commencing any construction. Commercial construction on residential plots is illegal and will not be tolerated.

• Importance of Due Diligence: Purchasers of property must conduct thorough due diligence to verify the legality of the construction and ensure that it complies with all applicable regulations.

• No Protection for Illegal Constructions: Illegal constructions will not be protected simply because they have existed for a long time or because a substantial amount of money has been invested in them.

• Accountability of Authorities: Authorities are expected to take strict action against illegal constructions and will be held accountable for their failure to perform their statutory obligations.

• No Estoppel Against Law: There can be no estoppel against the law. The lapses on the part of the authorities will not vest any person with a right to put up construction without planning approval and in violation of the conditions regarding usage.

• Authoritiesmust ensure that the public is not misled by illegal constructions.

• Remedy for Purchasers: Purchasers of illegally constructed properties have a remedy to sue the original allottee for return of money or damages.