Summary
The petitioner challenged Calcutta High Court orders in a public interest litigation directing eviction of occupants and demolition of unauthorised floors by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with police assistance, and the dismissal of her review. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's approach, refused the petitioner's request for a chance to seek regularisation, reiterated that unauthorised construction must be demolished and that courts must not engage in judicial regularisation, and dismissed the special leave petitions.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's directions in a public interest litigation for eviction of occupants and demolition of unauthorised construction, extended mutatis mutandis to neighbouring properties after notice, called for interference.
- Whether a person who has raised unauthorised construction should be given an opportunity to apply for its regularisation before demolition.
Held
- The Court was in complete agreement with the High Court's directions requiring the police to give notice to occupants to vacate, to evict those who remained, and the municipal corporation to demolish the unauthorised floors under videography, with the same directions applying mutatis mutandis to neighbouring properties found in violation after notice to their owners or occupants; the High Court's courage and conviction in dealing with unauthorised construction in public interest was commended. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
- Following its earlier directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024 INSC 990), the Court reiterated that every construction must strictly follow the rules and regulations, that violations brought to the notice of courts must be dealt with firmly, and that leniency to a person guilty of unauthorised construction is misplaced sympathy. (¶ 5)
- A person who has shown no regard for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up two unauthorised floors; unauthorised construction has to be demolished. Judicial discretion is guided by expediency, courts are not free from statutory fetters and justice must be rendered in accordance with law. The Court observed that many State Governments had lost sight of this while enacting regularisation of unauthorised development laws based on payment of impact fees. (¶ 6)
- Courts must adopt a strict approach to illegal construction and should not readily engage in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without the competent authority's permission; the law ought not to rescue those who flout it, as that would foster a culture of impunity and undermine the deterrent effect of laws. (¶ 7)
Result
Special leave petitions dismissed; pending applications disposed of. The Registry was directed to circulate a copy of the order to all High Courts.