Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's direction to demolish commercial shops built without sanction on a residential plot of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and sold to the appellants. It held that unauthorised construction cannot be legitimised by passage of time, official inaction or investment, that the purchasers could not plead estoppel, lack of notice or delay, and it issued general directions to authorities across the country to prevent and act against unauthorised construction.
Issues
- Whether commercial construction raised without sanction on a plot allotted for residential use was liable to demolition under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.
- Whether the demolition was vitiated by want of notice to the appellants, who had purchased the shops from the allottee, or by delay, laches, acquiescence or estoppel on the part of the Parishad.
- Whether the conversion of the plot to freehold and registration of the shop sale deeds regularised the construction.
- What general directions should issue to curb unauthorised construction.
Provisions considered
- Section 83, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965The competent authority is empowered to remove unauthorised construction; since the residential plot was illegally used for commercial construction without sanction, the construction was liable to be removed, and the authority had issued notices to the allottee from 1990 onward before ordering demolition. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Section 82, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965The appellants' plea that demolition was ordered without notice to them under this section was rejected: notices were served on the original allottee, the action was a continuation of earlier proceedings, and some notices were issued after the appellants came into occupation. (¶¶ 6, 16, 16.1, 16.2)
- Section 55(1)(a), Transfer of Property Act, 1882Read with the doctrine of caveat emptor: the buyer must take all steps within his capacity to ascertain the seller's title and defects in the property, while the seller must disclose material defects the buyer cannot discover with ordinary care; neither the appellants nor the allottee discharged these obligations. (¶ 16.2)
Held
- The allottee and his attorney admittedly raised commercial shops on a residential plot without any sanctioned plan, contrary to the residential-use conditions of the freehold deed; the construction was unauthorised and liable to removal. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Repeated notices from 1990 that did not culminate in demolition reflect the authorities' lackadaisical attitude and suggest collusion, but there is no estoppel against law and official lapses confer no right to build without approval or contrary to permitted use; the fact that the building stood for 24 years gives the occupants no legal right, and the plea of delay and laches fails. (¶ 15)
- There was no breach of natural justice: notices and a show cause notice were issued to the allottee before the demolition order, the present action continues earlier proceedings, and purchasers who failed to verify the permitted use and approvals before buying cannot complain of lack of notice. (¶¶ 16, 16.1, 16.2)
- Execution of the freehold deed did not license construction of shops, being expressly subject to residential use, and registration of property does not regularise unauthorised construction; the power to act against such construction is independent of the Registration Act. (¶ 17)
- Unauthorised construction must be dealt with firmly; delay, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction, investment or official negligence cannot shield it from action. Regularisation schemes should be brought only in exceptional circumstances, as a one-time measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and regard to environmental and public interest, and officials must be held accountable. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- In addition to the directions in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, the Court directed among other things: undertakings that possession will be given only after a completion or occupation certificate; display of the approved plan at site and periodic inspection; completion certificates only after inspection and rectification of deviations; service connections and bank loans only on production of the completion certificate; no trade licence in unauthorised buildings; immediate inter-departmental cooperation; disposal of regularisation or completion-certificate applications within 90 days; departmental action against erring officials; and contempt and prosecution for violations. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals dismissed and High Court order confirmed; appellants to vacate and hand over the premises within three months, followed by demolition within two weeks; all authorities to assist; criminal and departmental action against erring officials with a report to the Court; the appellants' deposit refunded with accrued interest; general directions issued and judgment to be circulated to all High Courts and Chief Secretaries; no costs.