Supreme Court Upholds Demolition of Unauthorized Commercial Construction on Residential Plot

Case Citation
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2024 & Civil Appeal No. 14605 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 17th December 2024
Judge(s): Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

Facts of the Case
The case arises from a writ petition filed by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Respondent No.1) before the Allahabad High Court seeking demolition of illegal and unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot (Plot No. 661/6) in Shastri Nagar, Meerut. Originally allotted in 1986 to Veer Singh (Respondent No.5) for residential purposes, the plot was misused for commercial purposes without approval. Despite several show cause notices issued since 1990 and a demolition order in 2011, unauthorized construction persisted. The appellants, who had purchased commercial shops built on the plot, challenged the High Court’s order directing demolition.

Contentions of the Appellant
The appellants contended that:

1. The shops have existed for over 24 years, and Respondent No.1 knowingly converted the property to freehold on an “as is where is” basis in 2004.
2. The appellants, bona fide purchasers, were not served proper notices under Section 82 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, violating principles of natural justice.
3. The High Court failed to explore the possibility of regularizing the construction.
4. The Parishad selectively targeted this property while ignoring other similar illegal constructions in the vicinity.
5. The demolition order was barred by delay and laches, arising due to the Parishad’s negligence and collusion with land grabbers.

Contentions of the Respondent
Respondent No.1 argued that:

1. The property was allotted as a residential plot, and any commercial use or construction violated statutory provisions and bylaws.
2. Notices were issued repeatedly to the original allottee (Respondent No.5), and the demolition order of 2011 followed due process.
3. The appellants were aware of the illegal status of the construction when they purchased the property, and their rights cannot supersede the law.
4. Unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized when violations are deliberate and substantial.
5. Delay in enforcement does not negate the Parishad’s statutory power to demolish illegal constructions.

Issues of the Judgment

1. Whether the appellants’ commercial constructions could be regularized despite clear violations of the residential usage condition?
2. Whether the delay and laches on the part of the authorities bar the enforcement of demolition?
3. Whether the appellants were denied principles of natural justice due to lack of personal notices?
4. Whether unauthorized constructions that persist over time can be legitimized?

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that:

1. The property was explicitly designated for residential use, and the unauthorized commercial construction by the original allottee (Respondent No.5) violated statutory norms.
2. The appellants, as subsequent purchasers, were expected to verify the nature and legality of the construction. The doctrine of Caveat Emptor applies, making the buyers responsible for such due diligence.
3. Delay or inaction by the authorities does not legitimize illegal constructions, as there can be no estoppel against statutory powers.
4. While notices were issued to the original allottee, further notices to the appellants were unnecessary as they purchased the property during an ongoing violation.
5. Unauthorized constructions undermine urban planning and resource management, and must be dealt with firmly to uphold the rule of law.

Principle of the Case
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized merely because of delay or subsequent transactions. Purchasers must exercise due diligence to ascertain the legality of constructions. Statutory authorities have the right and duty to enforce demolition of illegal structures, irrespective of the time elapsed.

Final Order
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s order of demolition. The appellants were granted three months to vacate the premises, after which the authorities were directed to demolish the illegal construction. The Court also ordered criminal and departmental action against the erring officials and directed refund of the amount deposited by the appellants, with accrued interest.

Importance of This Judgment to Society
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to urban planning laws and protecting the sanctity of zoning regulations. It sends a strong message that illegal constructions cannot be legitimized through delay, laches, or subsequent transactions. The ruling reinforces accountability among public officials and safeguards planned urban development for the greater public good. By holding both violators and negligent authorities responsible, the Supreme Court emphasizes the need for transparency, vigilance, and strict enforcement of building regulations.