The Court highlighted that unauthorized constructions pose significant risks to public safety | Global TV
Dr. Prashant Miranda
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally stated that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized, irrespective of the duration of occupancy or the investments made. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding urban planning laws and ensuring public safety.
Case Background
The case involved a residential plot in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, originally allotted to an individual for residential purposes. In 1990, the allottee began constructing commercial shops on the plot without obtaining the necessary permissions, in clear violation of building regulations. Despite multiple notices issued by the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad under Section 83 of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, the unauthorized construction continued unabated.
Subsequently, the appellants purchased these shops, claiming ignorance of the existing violations at the time of purchase. They contended that the demolition orders were issued without adequate notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, made several critical observations:
Non-Compliance with Notices: The Court noted that despite multiple notices since 1990, the original allottee failed to halt construction or seek regularization, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the law.
Doctrine of Caveat Emptor: Emphasizing the principle of ‘buyer beware,’ the Court stated that purchasers are expected to perform due diligence before acquiring property. The appellants’ failure to verify the legality of the constructions rendered their claims untenable.
Strict Enforcement of Urban Planning Laws: The Court highlighted that unauthorized constructions pose significant risks to public safety and strain resources like electricity and groundwater. It stressed the necessity for strict adherence to building regulations to ensure orderly urban development.
Limitations on Regularization Schemes: The judgment clarified that regularization of unauthorized constructions should be an exception rather than the norm, applicable primarily to residential properties and only after thorough analysis of various factors, including environmental impact and public interest.
Accountability of Authorities: The Court directed that officials who issue wrongful completion or occupancy certificates for unauthorized constructions should face departmental action, promoting transparency and accountability within regulatory bodies.
Implications of the Judgment
- This ruling has far-reaching implications:
Buyer Responsibility: Prospective property buyers are now unequivocally reminded of their duty to verify the legality of constructions before purchase, reinforcing the importance of due diligence in real estate transactions.
Enforcement of Regulations: Municipal authorities are encouraged to enforce urban planning laws rigorously, deterring unauthorized constructions and ensuring compliance with building norms.
Environmental Considerations: By limiting regularization schemes, the Court aims to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of haphazard urban development, promoting sustainable growth.
Administrative Accountability: The directive for departmental action against errant officials seeks to enhance the integrity of the approval process for building constructions.
This judgment serves as a strong warning against unauthorized constructions and underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to maintaining the rule of law in urban development. It reinforces the necessity for all stakeholders, including property buyers, builders, and regulatory authorities, to adhere strictly to legal provisions governing construction and urban planning.
