Illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.

Supreme Court issues rules to curb illegal constructions.

Officers who issue wrong completion/occupancy certificates to unauthorised constructions must face departmental action. The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized.

The bench upheld a demolition order for an illegal structure in Meerut, urging "iron hand" action against violations in a significant judgment.

The Supreme Court has issued nationwide guidelines to tackle the growing menace of unauthorised constructions, mandating stringent compliance with building regulations and directing that possession of buildings be handed over to owners or beneficiaries by a developer only after obtaining a valid completion or occupation certificate.

Mandating greater accountability from builders, authorities and even financial institutions, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on Tuesday directed that service providers, including electricity and water supply boards, must ensure that connections are granted only after verifying valid completion or occupation certificates, adding trade and business licenses should also be denied in unauthorised residential or commercial buildings. The top court further ordered banks and financial institutions to verify completion or occupation certificates before sanctioning loans against buildings.

The bench delivered the significant judgment while upholding a demolition order against an illegal structure in Meerut, as it called for “iron hand” action against violations and warned that leniency in such cases would amount to “misplaced sympathy”.

“Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence, and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against illegal or unauthorized constructions,” stressed the bench.

Highlighting the far-reaching consequences of unauthorised constructions, the court said that they not only endanger the lives of occupants and nearby residents but also disrupt orderly urban development and harm the environment.

“Master plans or zonal development cannot be just individual-centric but must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and the environment,” noted the judgment, adding that unauthorised constructions strain public resources, including electricity, groundwater and access to roads, which are primarily meant for planned and authorised activities.

The bench expressed disapproval of state governments’ tendencies to regularise illegal constructions, terming such practices short-sighted and detrimental to long-term urban planning.

“The state governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularization by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on the environment,” it lamented.

To ensure strict adherence to building laws and prevent future violations, the court laid out a set of directives. It directed that builders must provide an undertaking to ensure possession of buildings is handed over only after obtaining valid completion or occupation certificates. The court also ordered authorities to conduct periodic inspections at construction sites and maintain records to ensure compliance with approved plans. Further, the court directed service providers to supply electricity, water and other utilities only after verifying the validity of completion or occupation certificates.

The judgment emphasised the importance of timely action, stating that completion or occupation certificates should be issued without undue delay once authorities verify compliance. Any deviations must be rectified before such certificates are granted, and legal action should be taken against violators.

The bench also prohibited the issuance of trade or business licenses for unauthorised constructions, whether residential or commercial, and mandated that all development conform to zonal plans and land use regulations. It called for stringent action against officials responsible for wrongful certificate issuance or failure to enforce building laws.

The Supreme Court further instructed that any appeals or applications for regularization or rectification of deviations must be resolved within 90 days to prevent unnecessary delays. It cautioned that non-compliance with its directives would lead to contempt proceedings and possible prosecution.

“Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons entrusted with the act's implementation are held accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are left scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a Nelson’s eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks etc,” it underscored.

The court ordered the judgment to be circulated to all high courts, chief secretaries of state, and local bodies to ensure its wide implementation.

Illegal Constructions Can't Be Regularised Irrespective of Long Occupancy & Investments : Supreme Court

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court observed that illegal structures, irrespective of their investment or age, cannot be regularized. 

“we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy.”, the Court said. 

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to demolish structures purchased by the appellants. The shops and commercial spaces had been illegally constructed by Respondent No. 5 and 6 on land allotted by Respondent No. 1, the U.P. Housing and Development Board, without obtaining the required approvals. 

The appellant challenged the demolition order on grounds of long-standing occupancy and alleged lapses by the authorities in not sending prior notices to the appellant. 

Respondent No.1 argued that the construction was in blatant violation of residential zoning and lacked statutory approvals. It informed that several notices were issued to the original allottee (Respondent No.5 and 6) and the Appellant, but no corrective action was taken. According to them, delay and inaction do not validate illegal constructions. 

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan emphasized that illegal constructions cannot be permitted to thrive in blatant violation of mandatory legal provisions. The Court further noted that prolonged occupancy, financial investment, and authority's inaction do not legitimize unauthorized structures. 

“In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts / Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction.”, the Court said. 

“Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions.”, the court added. 

Officers Cannot Be Let Scot-Free, Actions To Be Taken Against Erring Officials Providing Building Permissions In Violation Of Law 

Although, the court noted that inaction on the part of the officials would not let the unauthorized construction become lawful but gave a warning to the officials responsible for the issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate who shall be proceeded with departmental proceedings forthwith.

“Unless the administration is streamlined and the persons entrusted with the implementation of the act are held accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more rampant. If the officials are let scot-free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a nelson's eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.”, the Court said. 

“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.”, the court added.