[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2467 : 2025 INSC 610 Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 12199-12200 of 2025) 30 April 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction in public interest by directing the KMC to initiate demolition of the unauthorised construction. Headnotes† Unauthorised Construction – The High Court directed the
police authorities to give notice to all the occupants to vacate the unauthorised constructed premises by themselves – In case, they continued to remain in occupation, it was directed that the occupants to be evicted by deployment of adequate police force – After the vacation of premises, the KMC
authority was directed to initiate demolition of the unauthorised construction – Correctness: Held: The High Court has rightly proceeded to take care of unauthorised construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public interest – In Rajendra Kumar Barjatya case, it has been made clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations – In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy – Also, 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. [Paras 5, 7]
2468 Case Law Cited Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, 2024 INSC 990 : [2024] 12 SCR 1320 – referred to. Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (C) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court) – referred to.
List of Keywords Unauthorised construction; Eviction; Deployment of police force; Rules and regulations; Requisite permissions; Regularisation of buildings; Judicial regularisation.
Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 12199-12200 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2025 and 22.04.2025 of the High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) No. 288 of 2024 and RVW No. 104 of 2025 respectively
Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., Soumya Dutta, Saurabh Prasad, Tushar Srivastava, Vishal Sinha. Advs. for the Respondents: Rahul Arya, Abdul Hamid Molla, Ritik Dwivedi, Rohit Amit Sthalekar. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order 1. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The High Court in Paras 21 and 22 of its impugned judgment and order has observed thus:- “21. Therefore, the police authorities are directed to
give notice to all the occupants to vacate the premises by themselves by April 30, 2025. If any of them still continued to remain in occupation, they shall be evicted [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors. by deployment of adequate police force and such process shall be completed by not later than May 16, 2025. After the three floors are vacated, the KMC authority shall initiate demolition proceedings for which also the police authorities shall deploy adequate police force and such demolition
shall be completed and a report be filed before this Court supported by photographs on June 19, 2025. During the process of vacating the occupants of the building as well as during the process of demolition, the entire events shall be videographed and such cost shall be borne by KMC.
22. Needless to state that this writ petition being a public interest litigation, it goes without saying that not only the construction, which has been put up by the private respondents is to be dealt with, but the KMC authority
should also cause inspection of all the neighbouring properties and if any violation is found, the above directions will apply mutatis mutandis to such constructions as well. Of course, action be taken after issuing notice to the
owners/occupants of those properties”. 3. We are in complete agreement with what has been observed by the High Court in the above referred paragraphs. 4. We admire the courage and conviction with which the High Court has proceeded to take care of unauthorised construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public interest.
5. In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above, we have issued the following directions:
“(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 2470
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 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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors. (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) 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.”
2472 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that her client be given one chance to pray for regularisation of the unauthorised construction. We do not find any merit in such submission. 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. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees.
7. 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 need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. 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. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]
8. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. 9. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10. Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this order to all the High Courts.
Result of the case: SLPs dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan