Introduction
Can unauthorized constructions be regularized by paying a fee, even after violating building regulations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in Kaniz Ahmed vs. Sabuddin & Ors., reinforcing the principle that illegal constructions must be dealt with firmly. The Court dismissed a petition seeking to regularize unauthorized construction, emphasizing the importance of adhering to building rules and regulations.
The judgment was delivered on **April 30, 2025**.
The case is cited as **2025 INSC 610**.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising **Justice J.B. Pardiwala** and **Justice R. Mahadevan**.
Case Background
The case originated from unauthorized construction undertaken by private respondents. The High Court, in its judgment, directed police authorities to ensure the occupants vacated the premises by April 30, 2025, and to complete the demolition of the unauthorized construction by May 16, 2025. The High Court also mandated videography of the eviction and demolition processes, with the costs borne by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). The High Court further directed the KMC to inspect neighboring properties for similar violations and apply the same directives, after issuing appropriate notices.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Unauthorized construction by private respondents. |
| April 30, 2025 | High Court’s deadline for occupants to vacate the premises. |
| May 16, 2025 | High Court’s deadline for completing the demolition of unauthorized construction. |
| June 19, 2025 | Deadline for KMC to file a report on the demolition with photographs. |
| April 30, 2025 | Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court directed the police to ensure the vacation of the premises by April 30, 2025, and to complete the demolition by May 16, 2025. The KMC was instructed to initiate demolition proceedings and file a report with photographs by June 19, 2025. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The legal framework relevant to this case includes the principles governing unauthorized construction and the powers of the High Court and municipal authorities to enforce building regulations. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to these regulations and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 990, where it was made clear that constructions must strictly adhere to rules and regulations.
The directions issued in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya included:
- Obtaining an undertaking from the builder/applicant that possession will be handed over only after obtaining a completion/occupation certificate.
- Displaying a copy of the approved plan at the construction site.
- Issuing completion/occupation certificates only after verifying compliance with the approved plan.
- Providing service connections (electricity, water, sewerage) only after producing the completion/occupation certificate.
- Taking action against deviations even after issuing the completion certificate.
- Not granting permission/licenses to conduct business in unauthorized buildings.
- Ensuring development conforms to the zonal plan.
- Providing cooperation from other departments to take action against unauthorized construction.
- Expeditiously disposing of appeals/revisions related to completion certificates or regularization of unauthorized construction.
- Strictly adhering to the directions to have a deterrent effect.
- Banks/financial institutions shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate.
- Violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the respective laws.
Arguments
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that her client be given one chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorised construction.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the petitioner should be given a chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorised construction.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the petitioner should be given a chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorised construction. | Rejected | The Court held that a person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others [CITATION: 2024 INSC 990] – The Court referred to this case to emphasize that constructions must strictly adhere to rules and regulations.
- Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [CITATION: W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)] – The Court cited this case to support the view that the law ought not to come to the rescue of those who flout its rigours.
Make [TABLE] of which authority were considered by the court and HOW. (e.g., approved, followed, overruled)
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others [2024 INSC 990] | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024] | Delhi High Court | Approved |
Judgment
The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. The Court held that a person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| The petitioner should be given one chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorised construction. | Rejected |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others [CITATION: 2024 INSC 990] – The Court followed this authority to emphasize that constructions must strictly adhere to rules and regulations.
- Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [CITATION: W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024] – The Court approved this authority to support the view that the law ought not to come to the rescue of those who flout its rigours.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the rule of law and ensure that building regulations are strictly adhered to. The Court emphasized that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized, and leniency cannot be shown to those who violate the law.
Create [TABLE] ranked based on percentage to show the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court as to what weighed in the mind of the court to come to the conclusion with the various points emphasised in the reasoning portion.
| Reason | Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Need to uphold the rule of law | Positive | 40% |
| Importance of adhering to building regulations | Positive | 30% |
| Rejection of leniency for illegal constructions | Negative | 20% |
| Prevention of unauthorized construction | Positive | 10% |
“Fact:Law”: Create ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide. Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects) | 30% |
| Law (legal considerations) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning: For every [ISSUE], explain the court’s logical reasoning in a responsive flowchart using down arrows, boxes and text with an appealing formal look.
The Court observed:
“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 further stated:
“Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority.”
The Court also noted:
“The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity.”
Key Takeaways
- Strict adherence to building regulations is mandatory.
- Unauthorized constructions will not be easily regularized.
- Courts will take a strict approach in dealing with illegal constructions.
- The rule of law must be upheld, and those who violate it will not be protected.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the registry to circulate a copy of the order to all the High Courts.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized, and courts must take a strict approach in dealing with illegal constructions to uphold the rule of law. This reinforces the existing legal position and emphasizes the importance of adhering to building regulations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kaniz Ahmed vs. Sabuddin & Ors. reinforces the critical importance of adhering to building regulations and the rule of law. The Court dismissed the petition seeking regularization of unauthorized construction, emphasizing that such constructions must be demolished, and leniency cannot be shown to those who violate the law.
Source: Kaniz Ahmed vs. Sabuddin