Illegal Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Supreme Court

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya And Another Vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed its stance on unauthorized constructions, emphasizing that such structures cannot be legitimized, regardless of the time elapsed or the investments made. The case involved a dispute between Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., focusing on the illegal commercial use of a residential plot and subsequent unauthorized constructions.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when Respondent No. 5, who was allotted a residential plot, started constructing commercial shops in 1990 without obtaining necessary permissions. Despite notices issued by the competent authority under Section 83 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, the illegal construction continued unabated.

The appellants, who later purchased the shops, contended that they were unaware of the violations at the time of purchase. They claimed the demolition orders were passed without adequate notice, violating the principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, while analyzing the sequence of events, noted that:

1. Non-Compliance with Notices: Despite multiple notices issued since 1990, Respondent No. 5 failed to halt construction or seek regularization.
2. Doctrine of Caveat Emptor: The court emphasized that buyers are expected to perform due diligence before purchasing property. The appellants failed to verify the plot’s permissible use or ascertain the legality of the structures.
3. No Estoppel Against Law: The court rejected the argument that the authorities’ delay in acting against the illegal construction should prevent them from enforcing the law.

Court’s Reasoning

The bench stated that illegal constructions undermine urban planning, public safety, and environmental sustainability. It observed that:

• Unauthorized buildings strain public resources, including electricity and water, which are planned based on lawful constructions.
• The failure of authorities to act promptly against such violations often signals collusion, further emboldening violators.
• Regularization schemes, while sometimes necessary, must be limited to exceptional circumstances, primarily for residential properties, and conducted after thorough analysis.

Judgment Highlights

The court concluded that:

1. Unauthorized constructions, even if longstanding, cannot be legalized under the guise of substantial investment or administrative inaction.
2. The appellants, having purchased the property with full knowledge or the means to ascertain its status, cannot claim immunity from demolition orders.
3. Urban planning regulations must be strictly adhered to, and violators should be dealt with firmly to prevent further disruptions to public interest and development.

Implications of the Verdict

This ruling serves as a stern reminder that unauthorized constructions are not only illegal but also detrimental to societal and environmental well-being. The court underscored the importance of enforcing urban planning laws to ensure orderly development.