Holding

Unauthorised construction on a residential plot, even if standing for decades, must be demolished and the High Court’s demolition order is affirmed.

Summary

The dispute arose from commercial shops that were erected on a residential plot in Meerut by the original allottee (Respondent No.5) and his power‑of‑attorney (Respondent No.6) without any sanction under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The shops were later sold to the appellants, who challenged the High Court’s demolition order on grounds of violation of natural‑justice principles, delay, and estoppel. The Supreme Court examined the series of notices issued from 1990 onward, the allottee’s persistent non‑compliance, and held that the mere passage of time does not legalise unauthorised construction and that the authorities’ inaction cannot create estoppel. It reiterated that illegal constructions must be demolished irrespective of the investment made or the duration of existence, and that the doctrine of caveat emptor places the burden on buyers to verify title and compliance. Consequently, the Court confirmed the High Court’s demolition order, directed the appellants to vacate within three months, ordered demolition within two weeks thereafter, mandated criminal and departmental action against erring officials, and ordered the refund of the deposit with interest.

Issues considered

The validity of the High Court’s demolition order in view of alleged violations of natural‑justice, delay and estoppel.
Whether laches or the passage of time can bar the authority from ordering demolition of unauthorised construction.
Whether the unauthorised construction and its subsequent sale to third parties can be regularised.
The effect of the authorities’ prior inaction on the rights of the appellants.
The propriety of directing criminal and departmental action against erring officials.

Legislation cited

Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 55(1)(a)
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965s. 82, s. 83

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Respondent Nos.5 (original allottee of the plot) and 6 (Respondent No.5’s power of attorney) without any approval from the competent authority, unauthorizedly constructed commercial shops on the subject property which was residential in nature and sold Impugned order passed by High Court ordering demolition and directing criminal as well as departmental action against the erring officials. Headnotes† Illegal/Unauthorized constructions – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.83 – High Court allowed

Subjects

Illegal/Unauthorized constructionsResidential natureCommercial shopsDemolitionCriminal actionDepartmental actionErring officialsShow cause noticesPrinciples of natural justiceEstoppelLachesCaveat EmptorBuilding planCompletion/occupation certificateRegularizationUrban developmentMaster planZonal development

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1320 : 2024 INSC 990

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another
v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024)
17 December 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Respondent Nos.5 (original allottee of the plot) and 6 (Respondent
No.5’s power of attorney) without any approval from the competent
authority, unauthorizedly constructed commercial shops on the
subject property which was residential in nature and sold them
to the appellants; Impugned order passed by High Court ordering
demolition and directing criminal as well as departmental action
against the erring officials.

Headnotes†
Illegal/Unauthorized constructions – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.83 – High Court allowed the
writ petition filed by Respondent No.1-authority and directed
demolition of the commercial shops of the appellants built on
the subject property which was residential in nature; criminal
and departmental action also directed against the erring
officials – Challenge to:
Held: Order passed by the High Court is well-reasoned – From
1990 onwards, though the Respondent No.1 periodically issued
notices for removal of unauthorized constructions, however, it did not
lead to actual removal/demolition – Despite sufficient opportunities
being granted to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 they continued the
illegality and thus, cannot plead estoppel – Further, the fact that
the notices issued by the authorities between 1990 to 2013 did
not culminate into demolition also speaks volumes about the
lackadaisical attitude of the authorities which smacks of collusion
with the violators – Thus, the fact that the building has stood for
over 24 years will not give the appellants any right in law alleging
delay and latches – There was no violation of the principles of
natural justice – Respondent No.1 after sending notices to the

* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1321

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

original allottee i.e., Respondent No.5 took steps to remove the
unauthorized construction made on the subject property – Thus,
the action impugned is not de novo action, but only continuation
of the earlier line of events – A situation was created, where the
Authority itself was forced to approach the High Court for a writ of
mandamus to the district police to provide help in demolition of the
unauthorized constructions – Order of the High Court confirmed –
Unauthorised construction made on the subject property to be
demolished – Appropriate criminal as well as departmental action
be taken against the erring officials/persons concerned as directed
by the High Court and a report be filed before this Court – Appeals
dismissed. [Paras 15, 16.1, 18, 22]

Illegal/unauthorized constructions – Directions by Supreme
Court – Comprehensive directions issued in larger public
interest, in addition to the directives issued in Re: Directions
in the matter of demolition of structures – Directions to be
scrupulously followed, violation to result in departmental
action, contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution under
the respective laws:
Held: (i) While issuing the building planning permission, an
undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may
be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted
and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining
completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at
the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the
entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall
inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such
inspection in their official records (iii) Upon conducting personal
inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in
accordance with the building planning permission given and there
is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion/
occupation certificate in respect of residential/commercial building,
be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned,
without causing undue delay – If any deviation is noticed, action
must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of
issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be deferred,
unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified
(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity,
water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the
service provider/ Board to the buildings only after the production
1322 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the completion/occupation certificate (v) Even after issuance
of completion certificate, deviation/violation if any contrary to the
planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate
steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with
law, against the builder/owner/occupant; and the official responsible
for issuance of wrongful completion/occupation certificate shall
be proceeded departmentally forthwith (vi) No permission/licence
to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities
including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized
building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan
and usage – Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must
be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration
of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority
under the planning department/local body for co-operation from
another department to take action against any unauthorized
construction, the latter shall render immediate assistance and
co-operation and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously –
The States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring
officials once it is brought to their knowledge (ix) In the event of any
application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against
the non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularisation of
unauthorised construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same
shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending
appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later
than 90 days as statutorily provided (x) Banks/financial institutions
shall sanction loan against any building as a security only after
verifying the completion/occupation certificate issued to a building
on production of the same by the parties concerned. [Para 21]
Doctrine – Doctrine of Caveat Emptor – Discussed – Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 – s.55(1)(a).

Illegal/unauthorized constructions – Without any approved
building plan or in violation of/deviation therefrom to be
curtailed with iron hands without any leniency:
Held: Illegality of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated –
If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts/Rules, it is
illegal and unauthorized construction which has to be demolished –
It cannot be legitimized or protected – Administrative failures,
regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment,
negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1323

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used to
defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions –
Regularization only in exceptional circumstances and as a
onetime measure for residential houses – Threats of unauthorized
constructions, discussed. [Paras 19, 20]

Case Law Cited
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v. Inderjeet Singh [2008] 14 SCR
95 : (2008) 13 SCC 506; K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers,
Town Municipal Council [1975] 1 SCR 680 : (1974) 2 SCC 506;
Dr.G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and
others [1995] Supp. 3 SCR 212 : (1995) 5 SCC 762; M.I. Builders
(P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [1999] 3 SCR 1066 : (1999) 6
SCC 464; Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident
Welfare Association and others [2021] 13 SCR 976 : (2021) 10
SCC 1; Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu
Municipality (2021) 16 SCC 822; State of Haryana v. Satpal (2023)
6 SCC 643 – referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.

List of Keywords
Illegal/Unauthorized constructions; Residential nature; Commercial
shops; Demolition; Criminal action; Departmental action; Erring
officials; Show cause notices; Notices periodically issued; Principles
of natural justice; Estoppel; Lackadaisical attitude of the authorities;
Collusion; De novo action; Administrative failures, Regulatory
inefficiency, Negligence; Laxity on the part of the authorities;
Doctrine of Caveat Emptor; Building plan; Completion/occupation
certificate; Builder/developer; Regularization; Unauthorized building;
Urban development; Master plan; Zonal development.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in WC No. 46342 of 2013
With
Civil Appeal No. 14605 of 2024
1324 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Vishwajit Singh, S. R. Singh, Sr. Advs.,
Ajit Sharma, Amrit Pradhan, Akshat Sharma, Durgesh Kumar,
Sandeep Singh, Sanchit Garga, Pahlad Singh Sharma, Abhishek
Kumar Singh, Pankaj Singh, S. Singh, Ms. Ridhima Singh, Ms.
Anamika Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra
Mishra, Advs. for the appearing Parties.

Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. Challenging the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2014 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 in Writ-C.No.46342 of
2013, the appellants herein, who are third parties to the proceedings,
have preferred the present appeals.
3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent Nos.2
to 4 to stop the illegal/unauthorized commercial construction on
residential plot no.661/6, Shastri Nagar Yojna No.7, Meerut, and
to provide police force to execute the order of demolition dated
31.05.2011 passed by the competent authority viz., Executive
Engineer, Construction Division-8, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad,
Sector 9, Shastri Nagar, Meerut.
4. By the judgment and order impugned herein, the High Court allowed
the above writ petition with the following directions and observations:
(a) The District Magistrate, Meerut and the Senior
Superintendent of Police Meerut shall remain present on
the date and time to be notified by the petitioner-Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad for the purposes of demolition of
unauthorized constructions. Such demolitions must be
effected on or before 31st December, 2014.

1 Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1325

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

(b) Criminal proceedings should be launched against
respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as against the officers,
who were In-charge of the office of Awas Vikas Parishad
at the relevant time including the Chief Engineer and the
Executive Engineer when these constructions had come up.
(c) The Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow shall ensure that
the departmental proceedings are also initiated against
the officers of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad responsible
for the situation, which has been created. The Housing
Commissioner shall also ensure that all like nature of
unauthorized constructions are similarly dealt with without
any discrimination and without any favourtism. For the
purpose, he shall ensure that the highest officer posted
in the office of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad at Meerut is
made personally responsible for giving notice to the owner/
persons in possession of the unauthorized occupations.
The proceedings must be decided and appropriate action
be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. There should be no complaint to
this Court that any person has been treated favourably in
the matter of demolition of the unauthorized constructions.
(d) We also direct the Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow to
ensure that the district authorities at Meerut are responded
to the request of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in the matter
of demolition with all promptness and with full force.
(e) We make it clear that all unauthorized constructions
have to be dealt with in same manner.”
5. At the outset, it is imperative to note the relevant background facts
leading to the present litigation. The Respondent No.5 by name,
Veer Singh was originally allotted a plot bearing No.661/6, situated
in Bhoomi Vikas, Grisathan Yojna No.7, Sector No.6, Phase-1,
Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P.2 by the Respondent No.1 on 30.08.1986.
Possession was also handed over to him on 15.06.1989. In respect
of the subject property, the Respondent No.1 executed a freehold
deed dated 06.10.2004 in favour of the Respondent No.5 with specific

2 Hereinafter shortly referred to as the “subject property”
1326 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

condition that the property shall be used only for residential purposes.
Contrary to the same, the Respondent No.5 with the assistance of his
power of attorney agent by name, Vinod Arora i.e., Respondent No.6,
started raising illegal commercial construction on the subject property
without obtaining any sanction/approval from the Respondent No.1.
Though show cause notices were issued to him, he neither responded
to the same nor took any steps against the illegal construction, which
compelled the competent authority to pass the order of demolition
of the illegal/unauthorized construction on the subject property on
31.05.2011. However, the Respondent No.1 was unable to execute
the said order, due to lack of co-operation from the local as well
as police authorities. Therefore, they preferred the Writ Petition
bearing No.46342 of 2013, which was allowed by the High Court,
by order dated 05.12.2014, which is assailed in these appeals by
the appellants herein, who are the owners of the commercial shops,
which are stated to have been illegally/unauthorizedly constructed
on the subject property by the Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
6. The common submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in these appeals are that admittedly, shops in
the subject property have been in existence for the past 24 years;
and the Respondent No.1 had converted the subject property from
leasehold to freehold by the registered document dated 06.10.2004
on “As is where is basis” and as per clause 6(a) of the said deed,
the Respondent No.1 had accepted the construction made on the
subject property and they were fully aware of the same from its
inception. That apart, through registered sale deeds, all the appellants
herein had purchased the shops constructed on the subject property
for valuable consideration and have been occupying the premises
since then and earning their livelihood. However, the Respondent
No.1 without issuing notice under section 82 of the U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 19653 to the appellants, erroneously took
steps to demolish the entire construction in the subject property by
treating the same as illegal and unauthorized one and also obtained
the demolition order from the High Court, which is arbitrary, illegal
and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of the
same, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this

3 For short, “the Act”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1327

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

Court in Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v. Inderjeet Singh,4 wherein,
demolition of commercial property was carried out by Municipal
Corporation, without serving proper notice on the respondent i.e.,
notice was served on a dead person and in such circumstances, it
was observed by this Court that ‘had a proper show cause notice
been served upon the first respondent, he could have shown that the
alleged violation of the provisions of the Act is of negligible character,
which did not warrant an order of demolition.’
6.1. Elaborating further, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that without issuing notice to the appellants and
occupants of the shops, the High Court has ordered demolition
of the entire construction in the subject property. According to
the learned counsel, the High Court, before ordering demolition,
should have directed the authorities to explore the possibility
of regularizing the alleged illegal construction in the subject
property. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that there
were initially about 15 to 20 shops and now, there are more
than 600 commercial establishments run in the area earmarked
as ‘Central Market’, but the Respondent No.1 failed in its
statutory duty to keep pace with the booming development
and therefore, this situation has arisen. It is further alleged
that the Respondent No.1 adopted a pick and choose policy,
whereby the construction made on the subject property was
cherry picked for demolition, whereas in the entire vicinity of
the Central market, buildings like this have blossomed and
mushroomed. The learned counsel ultimately, submitted that
the right of the Respondent No.1 to seek demolition is barred
by delay and laches and they were negligent and acted hand
in glove with the people responsible for such sorry state of
affairs and that, in terms of Sections 92 to 94 r/w Sections 3,
7 and 8 of the Act, the State Government has full rights and
control over the Respondent No.1, but they failed to exercise
the same in proper perspective. Resultantly, due to no fault on
the part of the appellants, their valuable rights are jeopardized
and prejudiced at the hands of the Respondent No.1, who are
acting in collusion and connivance with dishonest builders and
land grabbers. Stating so, the learned counsel prayed to set

4 (2008) 13 SCC 506
1328 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

aside the impugned order passed by the High court and allow
these appeals.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.1 made detailed submissions reiterating the averments stated in the
counter affidavit. According to him, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad viz.,
Respondent No.1 is the Housing Board of the State of Uttar Pradesh,
an autonomous body created under the statute and governed by the
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.5 With a view to
eliminate housing problem and have a planned development in the
District of Meerut, they floated a scheme called “Shastri Nagar Yojna
No.7”. In the said scheme, plots were carved out and categorized as
residential and commercial as per usage. The residential plots could
be used only for constructing the residential house and no commercial
activity was permitted on the said plots. However, the Respondent
No.5 started raising illegal commercial construction on the plot allotted
to him, without obtaining any sanction from the competent authority.
Though the Respondent No.1 sent show cause notices/communication
to the Respondent No.5 to stop the illegal construction and get the
same regularized, the Respondent No.5 did not respond to the same
and he continued to construct the shops for commercial purposes.
Therefore, the competent authority rightly passed the order of demolition
of the unauthorized construction. But the said order was not enforced
by the Respondent No.1, due to non-co-operation of the local as well
as police authorities. Finally, the Respondent No.1 approached the
High Court by filing the writ petition stating that the subject property
was patently in violation of the statutory provisions applicable and it
has to be demolished. The High Court after taking note of the facts
and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the impugned order,
which need not be interfered with by this Court.
7.1. In reply to the contentions raised on the side of the appellants,
the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 made the following
submissions:
(i) The Respondent No.5 got the property converted from
leasehold to freehold on the basis of the fabricated
construction completion certificate.

5 For short, “the Act”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1329

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

(ii) Unauthorized construction was made only by the original
allottee i.e., Respondent No.5 and not the appellants.
Further, the Respondent No.1 did not know about the
change of interest qua the subject property as it was never
intimated to them. Moreover, the appellants were aware of
the unauthorized construction and notices issued to stop
the same, at the time of purchasing the shops itself. In such
circumstances, there was no need for the appellants to
be arrayed as parties before the High Court in adherence
to the principles of natural justice.
(iii) The Respondent No.1 from the year 1990 onwards had
served several notices on the Respondent No.5, directing
him to stop the unauthorized construction, but he never
paid heed to any of the notices and continued to raise
the unauthorized construction. Therefore, it is incorrect to
state that the Respondent No.1 lost its right to demolish
the said unauthorized construction on the ground of delay
and laches.
(iv) The appellants’ right over the shops was created in
pursuance of the change in usage of plot and unauthorized
construction raised by the original allottee, which was never
approved by the Respondent No.1 and therefore, in no way,
their rights are being infringed by the Respondent No.1.
Further, it cannot be said that the action of the Respondent
No.1 is barred by the principles of acquiescence and
estoppel.
(v) The violations made by Respondent No.5 are deliberate,
designed and motivated and it is not a case where the
violations are marginal or insignificant or that it had
crept in accidentally. It is only after complying with all
the requirements of law that a violation would qualify for
regularization. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity
in the order of the High Court directing demolition of the
unauthorized construction.
(vi) Nevertheless, the appellants always have a remedy to sue
the Respondent No.5 for return of money and/or damages.
1330 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(vii) After carrying out all kinds of development activities in
different sectors of the Scheme, the Respondent No.1
allotted commercial properties, wherever required, by way
of auction sale and commercial activities are taking place
on such properties and therefore, it is wrong to state that
the Respondent No.1 failed in its duty to provide planned
development in the area.
(viii) An illegal act, more so, when it was done deliberately,
does not become legal only because certain length of
time has passed.
Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appeals filed
by the appellants may be dismissed by this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 made his
submissions supporting the case of the Respondent No.1 in entirety.
Placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
authorities, it is submitted by the learned counsel that they are ready
to provide all the protection and facilities to the Respondent No.1
to demolish the unauthorized construction as ordered by the High
Court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for appropriate orders
in these appeals.
9. During the pendency of these appeals, the Respondent No.5 died,
his legal heirs were brought on record as Respondent Nos.5.1 to
5.6, and the cause title was accordingly amended. Despite the
service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the legal heirs of the
deceased Respondent No.5. Qua the Respondent No.6, who also
died during the pendency of these appeals, it was recorded by this
Court on 24.03.20226 in SLP(C)No.36440 of 2014 that considering
the status of the parties and the subject matter in issue, there
was no requirement to substitute the legal representatives of the
deceased Respondent No.6. In such circumstances, we have to

6 It has been pointed out that respondent No. 6 in these petitions, Shri Vinod Arora S/o Late K.L. Arora, has
expired. It has also been pointed out that he has been a party in these matters in his capacity as power
of attorney holder of the other private i.e., respondent No. 5.
Looking at the status of the parties and the subject matter of these petitions, as at present, we see no
reason to require substitution of legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
Learned counsel for the parties may file short notes on their submissions while also clarifying the position
at site, as existing today.
List these matters for final hearing at the admission stage on 27.04.2022.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1331

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

examine the stand of the Respondent No.5 as was placed before
the High Court. It was stated by the Respondent No.5 therein that
after allotment, the Respondent No.5 executed a power of attorney
in respect of the subject property in favour of the Respondent
No.6, who raised the illegal/unauthorized commercial construction
on the same. He categorically admitted that the construction was
made without any sanctioned map/plan by the Respondent No.6.
However, he has no objection, if the construction is demolished
and he shall not claim any compensation from the Respondent
No.1. Thus, according to the Respondent No.5, the Respondent
No.6 was the original owner of the shops which were constructed
on the subject property on the strength of the power of attorney
executed by the Respondent No.5. Whereas, it was stated by the
Respondent No.6 before the High Court that it was the Respondent
No.5, who had raised construction of the shops and had sold the
same to the different persons.
10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well
as the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also
perused the materials available on record carefully and meticulously.
11. This Court on 17.12.20147 in SLP(CC) No.21102 of 2014,8 granted
an order of status quo in respect of the shop nos.6 and 10 situated
in the subject property on condition that the appellants deposit a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 23.12.2014. The said order was
duly complied with by the appellants. Thereafter, as per the order
dated 22.01.2015 passed by this Court, the deposited amount was
kept in interest bearing account. It is revealed from the latest office
report dated 18.11.2024 that amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by
the appellants in SLP(C)No.36440 of 2014, was kept in an interest-
bearing Fixed Deposit with UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound,
which is being renewed from time to time and is now bearing the
next date of maturity on 10.05.2025.

7 The notice shall be issued, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- before this Court
by 23”” December, 2014.
Status quo, existing as on today, qua the Shop Nos.10 and 6, Ground Floor, Plot No.661/ 6, Bhoomi
Vikas, Grisathan Yojna No. 7, Sector No.6, Phase-I, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, U.P., of the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 respectively, shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.
8 Arising out of which is SLP(C) No.36440 of 2014
1332 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. This Court also granted an order of status quo on 05.01.20159 in
SLP(CC) No.21820 of 2014.10 Subsequently, at the instance of the
appellants, on 30.11.2018,11 the said order was clarified by this Court
to the effect that it confined to the shops of the seven appellants in
the subject property.
13. Concededly, the appellants are third parties to the writ proceedings.
They have come up with these appeals stating that they are the
most affected persons by the order passed by the High Court and
will be deprived of their livelihood if the same is implemented. It is
the principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the shops have been in existence for the past 24
years and the appellants are the owners of the same by virtue of
the registered sale deed and the Respondent No.1 was fully aware
of the construction made on the subject property from its inception.
However, without issuing any notice to the appellants and occupants
of the shops, the order of demolition came to be passed and hence,
it is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
14. The facts remain undisputed are that the Respondent No.5 was
allotted the subject property on 30.08.1986 and possession was
handed over to him on 15.06.1989. The Respondent No.1 had
executed a sale deed cum free hold deed in favour of the Respondent
No.5 in respect of the subject property, on 06.10.2004. It is alleged
by the Respondent No.1 that the said deed was executed by the
Respondent No.1 based on the fabricated construction completion
certificate produced by the Respondent No.5 and he with the
assistance of the Respondent No.6, after possession, started to
construct commercial shops, without obtaining sanctioned map/plan/

9 Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
Issue notice, returnable within eight weeks.
Status quo, existing as on today, shall be maintained until further orders.
10 Arising out of which is SLP (C) No.1184 of 2015
11 I.A. No. 98823/2017 is for seeking a clarification of the order of this Court dated 5.1.2015 so that the
status quo as directed should be maintained in respect of the shops of the seven petitioners in the
special leave petition.
Our attention has been drawn to the fact that an order was passed by this Court on 17.12.2014 in another
special leave petition bearing SLP(C) No. 36440/2014 to that effect.
Hence, we direct that the order of status quo dated 5.1.2015 shall stand confined to the shops of the
seven petitioners in plot No. 661/6 in Bhumi Vikas, Grihsthan Yojana No.7, Sector-6, Phase-I, Shastri
Nagar, Meerut, U.P.
The I.A. is, accordingly, disposed of.
List the matter in the second week of January, 2019 along with SLP(C) No. 36440/2014.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1333

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

approval from the competent authority. Clause 6-B of the said deed
dated 06.10.2004 specifically stated that the property shall be used
only for the residential purposes. It was also clearly mentioned in
Clause 8 that the said property shall not be used for any purposes
other than residential purposes and the Registered intending buyer
shall always follow the rules and bylaws of the Council in respect of
the property sold. However, there was no material available to prove
that the Respondent No.5 was in possession of the sanctioned plan
in respect of the construction made on the subject property or that
he submitted any application before the authority concerned seeking
sanction/approval for such construction and the same was pending.
It is also pertinent to mention at this juncture that the Respondent
Nos.5 and 6 before the High Court categorically admitted that the
construction of the commercial shops was made without there
being any sanctioned plan from the competent authority. The survey
report produced by the Respondent No.1 relating to Scheme No.7,
Shastri Nagar, Meerut, would further disclose that there are 6379
sanctioned residential properties, in which 860 plots have been
used for commercial purpose. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 without obtaining sanctioned plan/approval
from the competent authority, illegally/unauthorizedly constructed the
shops on the subject property, for commercial purposes and sold to
the appellants and others for valuable consideration.
15. Undoubtedly, the competent authority under section 83 of the Act,
is empowered to remove the unauthorized construction. As stated
earlier, in this case, the plot allotted to the Respondent No.5 was
residential in nature and the same was illegally used for commercial
purpose and therefore, the construction raised on the subject property
was liable to be removed by the competent authority. However it
is the specific case of the appellants that the Respondent No.5
started to construct the commercial shops in the year 1990 itself,
i.e., immediately after taking possession of the subject property and
the Respondent No.1 was fully aware of such construction made
by the Respondent No.5, from its inception, but they did not take
immediate steps against the same. It can be reasonably inferred
that the Respondent No.1 was aware of the construction made on
the subject property at the beginning itself, which prompted them to
issue show cause notice dated 19.09.1990 to the Respondent No.5
to stop the illegal construction and take appropriate steps. Without
1334 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

giving reply to the same, the Respondent No.5 continued to raise
illegal commercial construction on the plot allotted to him. Thereafter,
vide letter dated 27.09.2002, the Respondent No.1 instructed the
Respondent No.5 to get the illegal construction regularized. But the
Respondent No.5 did not respond to the same and he continued
the illegal construction of some more shops on the subject property.
Therefore, the Respondent No.1 sent a notice dated 09.02.2004 to
the Respondent No.5 stating that the plot allotted to him was being
illegally used for commercial purpose and hence, the construction
raised on the subject property was liable to be removed under section
83 of the Act. Even thereafter, the Respondent No.5 failed to reply
to the said notice, which compelled the competent authority to pass
an order of demolition dated 23.03.2005 for removal of unauthorized
construction. However, the said order could not be executed by the
Respondent No.1. In the meanwhile, the shops constructed on the
subject property were purchased by the appellants herein and others,
which was not intimated to the Respondent No.1 by the Respondent
No.5. It is also evident from the records that in the year 2011, the
Respondent No.5 again started to raise the illegal construction on
the subject property, which was objected to by the Respondent No.1
by issuing notice dated 20.04.2011 and directing him to immediately
stop the unauthorized construction and show cause as to why the
same should not be demolished. However, there was no reply on
the side of the Respondent No.5. Finding no other alternative, the
competent authority by exercising powers under section 83 of the
Act, passed the order dated 31.05.2011 to demolish the said illegal
construction raised on the subject property. Thus, from 1990 onwards,
though the Respondent No.1 had periodically issued notices for
removal of unauthorized constructions, it did not lead to actual
removal/ demolition. Despite sufficient opportunities being granted to
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 they did not utilize the same and continued
the illegality. Such parties cannot plead estoppel. Even otherwise, we
are of the view that there cannot be any estoppel against 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. However, the fact that the notices
issued by the authorities between 1990 to 2013 did not culminate into
demolition, would speak volumes about the lackadaisical attitude of
the authorities and that also smacks of collusion with the violators.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1335

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

Therefore, the fact that the building has stood over 24 years will
not clothe the appellants with any right in law and hence we do not
find any force in the contentions of the counsel for the appellants
alleging delay and latches.
16. As regards the allegation raised by the appellants that without issuing
any notice, the order of demolition came to be passed against
them, the records reveal that before passing the order of demolition
dated 30.05.2011 by the competent authority, the Respondent No.1
sent show cause notice dated 20.04.2011 to the Respondent No.5
pointing out the raising of commercial construction illegally on the plot
allotted for residential use, that too, without sanctioned map/plan and
permission accorded. Subsequently, the copy of the notice served
on the Respondent No.5 was pasted on the notice board. But the
Respondent No.5 failed to appear before the authority concerned to
put forth his stand. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 passed the order
dated 31.05.2011 for demolishing the unauthorized construction, but
the same did not take place.
16.1. Even thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 continued to raise illegal
commercial construction, which led the Respondent No.1 to
lodge a First Information Report on 29.07.2013 and also sought
for assistance from Respondent No. 4 for demolition. However,
on account of the fact that there was no assistance from the
police, the demolition could not be proceeded with. It is thereafter
that the Respondent No.1 approached the High Court by filing
the writ petition. It is clear from the above narration of facts
that there has been no violation of the principles of natural
justice and the Respondent No.1 after sending notices to the
original allottee i.e., Respondent No.5 took steps to remove
the unauthorized construction made on the subject property.
Therefore, the action impugned now is not de novo action, but
only continuation of the earlier line of events as stated above.
16.2. As regards the rights of the appellants, independent from that
of Respondent No.5, are concerned, we are unable to believe
that the appellants did not even verify the original allotment
order before purchase of the property to know the permissible
use of the property and the factum of existence or otherwise of
any approval in respect of the commercial building purchased
by them. In this regard, the doctrine of Caveat Emptor would
1336 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

require the buyer to perform all acts within his capacity to
ascertain the title of the seller and the defects in the property.
Further, Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 55 of the Transfer of
Property Act makes it clear when the buyer with ordinary care
is not able to ascertain the material defect in the property or in
the seller’s title, it becomes the duty of the seller to disclose the
same though it is the primary responsibility is on the buyer to
ascertain the defects in the property and the title. In the present
case, it appears that neither the appellants as buyers nor the
Respondent No. 5 as seller have performed their obligations
under the law. Having said this, it is pertinent to mention here
that some notices have also been issued after the appellants
have come into occupation of the premises. Thus, the contention
of the appellants that they were not put on notice and that the
orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice, is a
fig leaf of a defence that can hardly have any basis in law.
17. The deed dated 06.10.2004 said to have been executed by
the Respondent No.1 granting freehold right to the Respondent
No.5 while simultaneously issuing notices against unauthorized
constructions, does not inspire the confidence of this court. In any
event the said grant is also subject to a condition that it shall be
used for residential purpose and hence it cannot be treated as a
licence to construct the shops without any sanction/approval. That
apart, the registration of the property would not in any way amount
to regularizing the unauthorized construction. The power to take
action against an unauthorized construction is independent and not
in anyway connected to the Registration Act. Seen from any angle
the appellants cannot claim that the construction of shops was in
accordance with law.
18. Notably, the High Court, in the order impugned herein, clearly
observed that the officials who are responsible for ensuring planned
land development and for ensuring that no unauthorized/illegal
constructions take place, themselves start colluding with the land
mafias. A situation has been created, where the authority itself is
forced to approach the High Court for a writ of mandamus to the
district police to provide help in the matter of demolition of the
unauthorized constructions, which have been raised within the
jurisdictional territory of the authority concerned. Having held thus,
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1337

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

and also considering the stand of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 that
they have no objection for demolition of the unauthorized construction,
the High Court passed the order of demolition with direction to the
authorities. We find no reason much less valid reason to interfere
with the well-reasoned order passed by the High Court.
19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that
illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the
construction is made in contravention of the Acts/Rules, it would
be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has
to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected
solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the
authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money
has been spent on the said construction. The following decisions
are of relevance and hence cited herein below to drive home the
point that unauthorized constructions must be dealt with, with an
iron hand and not kid gloves.
(i) In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal
Council,12 after having found that the impugned resolution
sanctioning plan for conversion of building into a cinema was
in violation of the Town Planning Scheme and hence, it has no
legal foundation, this Court held that the High Court was wrong
in not quashing the resolution on the surmise that money might
have been spent. The relevant passage reads as follows:
“29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory
duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers
who have a legal right to demand compliance by a
local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights
alone. The scheme here is for the benefit of the public.
There is special interest in the performance of the
duty. All the residents in the area have their personal
interest in the performance of the duty. The special
and substantial interest of the residents in the area
is injured by the illegal construction.
30. The High Court was not correct in holding that
though the impeached resolution sanctioning plan for

12 (1974) 2 SCC 506
1338 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

conversion of building into a cinema was in violation
of the Town Planning Scheme yet it could not be
disturbed because Respondent No.3 is likely to have
spent money. An excess of statutory power cannot
be validated by acquiescence in or by the operation
of an estoppel. The Court declines to interfere for the
assistance of persons who seek its aid to relieve them
against express statutory provision. Lord Selborne in
Maddison v. Alderson [1883] 8 App. Cases 467 said
that courts of equity would not permit the statute to
be made an instrument of fraud. The impeached
resolution of the Municipality has no legal foundation.
The High Court was wrong in not quashing the
resolution on the surmise that money might have
been spent. Illegality is incurable.
31. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted.
The order of the High Court leaving resolution dated
19 June, 1970 being Annexure ‘D’ to the petition
undisturbed is set aside. The resolution dated 19
June, 1970 being Annexure ‘D’ to the petition before
the High Court is quashed. The parties will pay and
bear their own costs.”
(ii) Dr.G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and
others,13 in which, the Authority concerned misused the power
and allotted the plot earmarked for park for a nursery school.
This Court vehemently condemned the same and ordered for
cancellation of the said allotment, besides recommending penal
action against the authority concerned. The relevant paragraphs
are extracted below:
“8. We, therefore, hold that the land which was allotted
to Respondent 2 was part of a park. We further hold
that it was not open to the DDA to carve out any
space meant for park for a nursery school. We are
of the considered view that the allotment in favour
of Respondent 2 was misuse of power, for reasons
which need not be adverted. It is, therefore, a fit

13 (1995) 5 SCC 762
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1339

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

case, according to us, where the allotment in favour
of Respondent 2 should be cancelled and we order
accordingly. The fact that Respondent 2 has put up
some structure stated to be permanent by his counsel
is not relevant, as the same has been done on a
plot of land allotted to it in contravention of law. As
to the submission that dislocation from the present
site would cause difficulty to the tiny tots, we would
observe that the same has been advanced only to
get sympathy from the Court inasmuch as children,
for whom the nursery school is meant, would travel to
any other nearby place where such a school would be
set up either by Respondent 2 or by any other body.
9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed by ordering
the cancellation of allotment made in favour of
Respondent 2. It would be open to this respondent
to continue to run the school at this site for a period
of six months to enable it to make such alternative
arrangements as it thinks fit to shift the school, so
that the children are not put to any disadvantageous
position suddenly.
10. Before parting, we have an observation to make.
The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that
where unauthorised constructions are demolished on
the force of the order of courts, the illegality is not
taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the
statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised
construction to be made or make illegal allotments
go scot free. This should not, however, have happen
for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order
of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful
act of the citizen concerned, because of which the
officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the
illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us,
that while undoing the mischief which would require
the demolition of the unauthorised construction,
the delinquent officer has also to be punished in
accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens.
Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the
1340 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

officer who had misused his power has also to be
properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that
the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined,
retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same.
This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted
acts, whereas the aim should be opposite.”
(iii) In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu14, this court in
clear terms, held that there is no alternative to the construction
which is unauthorised and illegal to be dismantled. The relevant
paragraphs read thus:
“13. There is no alternative to the construction
which is unauthorised and illegal to be dismantled.
The whole structure built is in contravention of the
provisions of law as contained in the Development Act.
The decision to award contract and the agreement
itself was unreasonable. The construction of the
underground shopping complex, if allowed to stand,
would perpetuate an illegality. Mahapalika could not
be allowed to benefit from the illegality. A decision of
this Court in Seth Badri Prasad and others vs. Seth
Nagarmal and others (1959 (1) Supp. SCR 769 at
774) was referred to, to contend that the court could
not exclude from its consideration a public statute and
since the construction of the underground shopping
complex was wholly illegal it had to be dismantled.
No question of moulding a relief can arise as the
builder made construction on the basis of the interim
order of this Court and at its own risk.”
“73. The High Court has directed dismantling of the
whole project and for restoration of the park to its
original condition. This Court in numerous decisions
has held that no consideration should be shown to
the builder or any other person where construction
is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost bordering

14 (1999) 6 SCC 464
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1341

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and
the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise
judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such a
discretion cannot be exercised which encourages
illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised
construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded,
has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial
discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts
are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be
rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not
entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of
judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on
their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions.
Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be
exercised has to be in accordance with law and set
legal principles. As will be seen in moulding the relief
in the present case and allowing one of the blocks
meant for parking to stand, we have been guided by
the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika to construct
and maintain parking lots.”
“81. A number of cases come to this Court pointing
to unauthorised constructions taking place at many
places in the country by builders in connivance with
the corporation/municipal officials. In a series of cases,
this Court has directed demolition of unauthorised
constructions. This does not appear to have any
salutary effect in cases of unauthorised construction
coming to this Court. While directing demolition of
unauthorised construction, the court should also direct
an enquiry as to how the unauthorised construction
came about and to bring the offenders to book. It
is not enough to direct demolition of unauthorised
construction, where there is clear defiance of law. In
the present case, but for the observation of the High
Court, we would certainly have directed an enquiry
to be made as to how the project was conceived
and how the agreement dated 4-11-1993 came to
be executed.”
1342 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iv) In Esha Ekta Apartments Coop Housing Society Limited v.
Municipal Corporation of Mumbai,15 it was observed by this
Court that the courts are expected to refrain from exercising
equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised
constructions and the relevant passage of the said decision is
extracted below:
“1. In the last five decades, the provisions contained
in various municipal laws for planned development
of the areas to which such laws are applicable have
been violated with impunity in all the cities, big or
small, and those entrusted with the task of ensuring
implementation of the master plan, etc. have miserably
failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable
that this is so despite the fact that this Court has,
keeping in view the imperatives of preserving the
ecology and environment of the area and protecting
the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the
authorities concerned against arbitrary regularisation
of illegal construction by way of compounding and
otherwise.”
“8. At the outset, we would like to observe that by
rejecting the prayer for regularisation of the floors
constructed in wanton violation of the sanctioned
plan, the Deputy Chief Engineer and the appellate
authority have demonstrated their determination
to ensure planned development of the commercial
capital of the country and the orders passed by them
have given a hope to the law-abiding citizens that
someone in the hierarchy of administration will not
allow unscrupulous developers/builders to take law
into their own hands and get away with it.”
“56. We would like to reiterate that no authority
administrating municipal laws and other similar laws
can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan. The
courts are also expected to refrain from exercising
equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and

15 (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases : (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Civil) 89
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1343

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

unauthorised constructions else it would encourage
violators of the planning laws and destroy the very
idea and concept of planned development of urban
as well as rural areas.”
(v) The aforesaid view was reiterated in Supertech Limited v.
Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others16
by holding that illegal constructions have to be dealt with strictly
to ensure compliance with rule of law. The relevant paragraphs
read as under:
“159. The rampant increase in unauthorised
constructions across urban areas, particularly in
metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place
a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in
several decisions of this Court. This state of affairs
has often come to pass in no small a measure
because of the collusion between developers and
planning authorities.
160. From commencement to completion, the process
of construction by developers is regulated within
the framework of law. The regulatory framework
encompasses all stages of construction, including
allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for
construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the
structures under construction, obtaining clearances
from the different departments (fire, garden, sewage
etc.,) and the issuance of occupation and completion
certificates. While the availability of housing stock,
especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to
accommodate the constant influx of people, it has
to be balanced with two crucial considerations - the
protection of the environment and the well-being and
safety of those who occupy these constructions. The
regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure
that constructions which will have a severe negative
environmental impact are not sanctioned. Hence,
when these regulations are brazenly violated by

16 (2021) 10 SCC 1
1344 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

developers, more often than not with the connivance
of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core
of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an
increased harm to the environment and a dilution of
safety standards. Hence, illegal construction has to
be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the
rule of law.
161. The judgments of this Court spanning the last
four decades emphasise the duty of planning bodies,
while sanctioning building plans and enforcing building
regulations and bye-laws to conform to the norms by
which they are governed. A breach of the planning
authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with
building regulations is actionable at the instance of
residents whose rights are infringed by the violation
of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the
failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance.
Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of
flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus
between builders and planners. Their quality of life is
affected the most. Yet, confronted with the economic
might of developers and the might of legal authority
wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their
voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle
for rights with little certainty of outcomes. As this case
demonstrates, they are denied access to information
and are victims of misinformation. Hence, the law
must step in to protect their legitimate concerns.”
(vi) In Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority vs.
Maradu Municipality,17 it was once again reiterated that illegal
and unauthorised constructions put up with brazen immunity,
cannot be permitted to remain. The relevant passage of the
said decision is quoted below:
“107. At this stage, we must deal with the argument
raised before us by the company. It is submitted
that a world class resort has been put up which will

17 (2021) 16 SCC 822
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1345

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

promote tourism in a State like Kerala which does
not have any industries as such and where tourism
has immense potential and jobs will be created. It
is submitted that the Court may bear in mind that
the company is eco-friendly and if at all the Court is
inclined to find against the company, the Court may,
in the facts of this case, give direction to the company
and the company will strictly abide by any safeguards
essential for the preservation of environment.
108. We do not think that this Court should be
detained by such an argument. The Notification issued
under the Environment (Protection) Act is meant to
protect the environment and bring about sustainable
development. It is the law of the land. It is meant to
be obeyed and enforced. As held by the Apex Court,
construction in violation of the Coastal Regulation
Zone Regulations is not to be viewed lightly and he
who breaches its terms does so at his own peril. The
fait accompli of constructions being made which are
in the teeth of the Notification cannot present, but a
highly vulnerable argument. We find that the view
taken by the Kerala High Court in aforesaid decision
is appropriate. Permission granted by the Panchayat
was illegal and void. No such development activity
could have taken place. In view of the findings of the
Enquiry, Committee, let all the structures be removed
forthwith within a period of one month from today and
compliance be reported to this Court.”
(vii) In State of Haryana v. Satpal,18 it was held that the High Court
committed a very serious error in directing to legalise the
unauthorized occupation and possession made by the original
writ petitioners on payment of market price and hence, it
deserved to be quashed. The operative portion of the judgment
is reproduced below:
“19. Under the circumstances, the High Court has
committed a very serious error in directing to legalise

18 (2023) 6 SCC 643
1346 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the unauthorised occupation and possession made
by the original writ petitioners on payment of market
price. Even the other directions issued by the High
Court are not capable of being implemented, namely,
to segregate the vacant land from the residential house
and which can be separated and utilised for earmarked
purpose i.e. school premises. The unauthorised
construction is in such a manner and even some areas
are not used for residential purpose and some of the
area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not
possible to segregate and separate the same, which
can be used for school premises. There is no other
panchayati land and/or other land, which is available,
which can be used as school premises/playground.
The adjacent land belongs to some private persons
and they are not ready to part with their land to be
used as school premises/playground.
20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court and the directions issued (reproduced
hereinabove) directing to legalise the unauthorised
occupation and possession made by the original
writ petitioners on the land, which is earmarked for
school premises/playground is unsustainable and
the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside. However,
the original writ petitioners are granted 12 months’
time to vacate the land, which is occupied by them
unauthorisedly and if within one year from today, they
do not vacate the lands in question, the appropriate
authority is directed to remove their unauthorised
and illegal occupation and possession.”
(viii) Finally, in a recent decision in Re: Directions in the matter of
demolition of structures19, while determining a question whether
the executive should be permitted to take away the shelter of
a family or families as a measure for infliction of penalty on

19 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1347

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

a person, who is accused in a crime under our constitutional
scheme, this Court has extensively analysed all the aspects
and issued certain directions to the authorities. The penultimate
paragraphs read as under:
“IX. DIRECTIONS
90. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the
citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by
the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary
to issue certain directions in exercise of our power
under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also
of the view that even after orders of demolition are
passed, the affected party needs to be given some
time so as to challenge the order of demolition before
an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that
even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest
the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given
to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not
a happy sight to see women, children and aged
persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens
would not fall on the authorities if they hold their
hands for some period.
91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions
will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized
structure in any public place such as road, street,
footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or
water bodies and also to cases where there is an
order for demolition made by a Court of law.
A. NOTICE
i. No demolition should be carried out without a prior
show cause notice returnable either in accordance
with the time provided by the local municipal laws or
within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such
notice, whichever is later.
ii. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier
by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall
also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of
the structure in question.
1348 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall
start from the date of receipt of the said notice.
iv. To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct
that as soon as the show cause notice is duly served,
intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/
District Magistrate of the district digitally by email and
an auto generated reply acknowledging receipt of
the mail should also be issued from the office of the
Collector/District Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall
designate a nodal officer and also assign an email
address and communicate the same to all the municipal
and other authorities in charge of building regulations
and demolition within one month from today.
v. The notice shall contain the details regarding:
a. the nature of the unauthorized construction.
b. the details of the specific violation and the grounds
of demolition.
c. a list of documents that the noticee is required to
furnish along with his reply.
d. The notice should also specify the date on which
the personal hearing is fixed and the designated
authority before whom the hearing will take place;
vi. Every municipal/local authority shall assign a
designated digital portal, within 3 months from
today wherein details regarding service/pasting of
the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the
order passed thereon would be available.
B. PERSONAL HEARING
i. The designated authority shall give an opportunity
of personal hearing to the person concerned.
ii. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be
recorded.
C. FINAL ORDER
i. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass
a final order.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1349

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

ii. The final order shall contain:
a. the contentions of the noticee, and if the designated
authority disagrees with the same, the reasons
thereof;
b. as to whether the unauthorized construction is
compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor;
c. if the designated authority finds that only part of
the construction is unauthorized/noncompoundable,
then the details thereof.
d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only
option available and other options like compounding
and demolishing only part of the property are not
available.
D. AN OPPORTUNITY OF APPELLATE AND
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE FINAL ORDER.
i. We further direct that if the statute provides for
an appellate opportunity and time for filing the
same, or even if it does not so, the order will not be
implemented for a period of 15 days from the date
of receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed
on the digital portal as stated above.
ii. An opportunity should be given to the owner/
occupier to remove the unauthorized construction or
demolish the same within a period of 15 days. Only
after the period of 15 days from the date of receipt
of the notice has expired and the owner/occupier
has not removed/demolished the unauthorized
construction, and if the same is not stayed by any
appellate authority or a court, the concerned authority
shall take steps to demolish the same. It is only such
construction which is found to be unauthorized and
not compoundable shall be demolished.
iii. Before demolition, a detailed inspection report
shall be prepared by the concerned authority signed
by two Panchas.
1350 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

E. PROCEEDINGS OF DEMOLITION
i. The proceedings of demolition shall be video-
graphed, and the concerned authority shall prepare
a demolition report giving the list of police officials
and civil personnel that participated in the demolition
process. Video recording to be duly preserved.
ii. The said demolition report should be forwarded to
the Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also
be displayed on the digital portal.
92. Needless to state that the authorities hereinafter
shall strictly comply with the aforesaid directions
issued by us.
93. It will also be informed that violation of any of
the directions would lead to initiation of contempt
proceedings in addition to the prosecution.
94. The officials should also be informed that if the
demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of
this Court, the officer/officers concerned will be held
responsible for restitution of the demolished property
at his/their personal cost in addition to payment of
damages.”
20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s)
put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by
the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put
up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged.
Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following
and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being
brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron
hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing
misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of illegalities,
administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction
and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities
concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be
used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized
constructions. That apart, the State Governments often seek to enrich
themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning/
ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1351

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to
the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on
the environment. Hence, regularization schemes must be brought
out only in exceptional circumstances and as a onetime measure
for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the
nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability
and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and
larger public interest. Unauthorised constructions, apart from posing
a threat to the life of the occupants and the citizens living nearby,
also have an effect on resources like electricity, ground water and
access to roads, which are primarily designed to be made available
in orderly development and authorized activities. Master plan or the
zonal development cannot be just individual centric but also must
be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and the
environment. Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons
entrusted with the implementation of the act are held accountable
for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this
nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials
are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to
turn a nelson’s eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all
planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.
21. Therefore, in the larger public interest, we are inclined to issue the
following directions, in addition to the directives issued by this Court
in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (supra):
(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking
be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to
the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/
or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining
completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed at
the construction site, a copy of the approved plan during the
entire period of construction and the authorities concerned shall
inspect the premises periodically and maintain a record of such
inspection in their official records.
(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being satisfied that
the building is constructed in accordance with the building
planning permission given and there is no deviation in such
construction in any manner, the completion/occupation certificate
1352 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in respect of residential/commercial building, be issued by the
authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing
undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken
in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of
completion/occupation certificate should be deferred, unless
and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.
(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water
supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service
provider/Board to the buildings only after the production of the
completion/occupation certificate.
(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation/violation
if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice
of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority
concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder/owner/
occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of
wrongful completion/occupation certificate shall be proceeded
departmentally forthwith.
(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be
given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union
Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being
residential or commercial building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and
usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be
taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration
of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective authority under
the planning department/local body for co-operation from another
department to take action against any unauthorized construction,
the latter shall render immediate assistance and co-operation
and any delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The
States/UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring
officials once it is brought to their knowledge.
(ix) In the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by
the owner or builder against the non-issuance of completion
certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised construction
or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be disposed
of by the authority concerned, including the pending appeals/
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1353

Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later
than 90 days as statutorily provided.
(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions issued
by this court and those being passed today, they would have
deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation before the
Tribunal/Courts relating to house/building constructions would
come down drastically. Hence, necessary instructions should
be issued by all the State/UT Governments in the form of
Circular to all concerned with a warning that all directions must
be scrupulously followed and failure to do so will be viewed
seriously, with departmental action being initiated against the
erring officials as per law.
(xi) Banks/financial institutions shall sanction loan against any
building as a security only after verifying the completion/
occupation certificate issued to a building on production of the
same by the parties concerned.
(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of
contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution under the
respective laws.
22. As far as the present case is concerned, we pass the following orders:
(i) The order of the High Court shall stand confirmed.
(ii) The appellants are directed to vacate and handover the vacant
premises to the respondent authorities within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iii) On such surrender, the respondent authorities shall take steps
to demolish the unauthorised construction made on the subject
property, within a period of two weeks therefrom.
(iv) All the authorities shall provide necessary assistance to the
Respondent No.1 to execute the order of the High Court in its
letter and spirit.
(v) Appropriate criminal as well as departmental action shall be
taken against the erring officials/persons concerned in line with
the order of the High Court and a report shall be filed before
this Court.
(vi) The amount deposited by the appellants in SLP (C)No. 36440
of 2014 be refunded to them, along with accrued interest.
1354 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

23. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these appeals stand
dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.

NOTE:
1) The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to circulate a copy of this
Judgment to the Registrar General of all the High Courts, so
as to enable the High Courts to refer it, while considering the
disputes relating to unauthorised construction, deviation/violation
of building permission, plan, etc.
2) The Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to circulate a copy of
this Judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union
Territories. All the State/UT Governments shall issue circulars
to all the local authorities/Corporations, intimating them about
the directions issued by this Court and for strict compliance.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey