Unauthorized Constructions Must Be Addressed with an Iron Hand: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

Summary of the Judgment

• Case Name: Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.

• Date of Judgment: 17 December 2024

• Judges: Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan

• Acts and Sections:

  • U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – Sections 82, 83

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 55(1)(a)

• Cited Judgments:

  • K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council [(1974) 2 SCC 506]

  • Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association [(2021) 10 SCC 1]

  • Esha Ekta Apartments Coop Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai [(2013) 5 SCC 89]

Introduction

This case examines the legal principles governing unauthorised constructions, the role of statutory bodies, and the rights of third parties who claim ownership through disputed transactions. The judgment delivers a strong message against regulatory inefficiency and illegal constructions, emphasising adherence to planning laws.

Case Background

The appellants purchased shops constructed illegally on a residential plot in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, originally allotted to the Respondent No. 5 under the Shastri Nagar Yojna No. 7. The Respondent No. 5 constructed commercial establishments without sanction and sold them to third parties, including the appellants. Despite repeated notices, the authorities failed to act promptly, allowing unauthorised constructions to persist for over two decades.

The High Court ordered demolition of the unauthorised structures and directed criminal and departmental actions against errant officials. The appellants challenged this order before the Supreme Court, citing procedural lapses and delay.

Key Legal Issues

1. Can unauthorised constructions be regularised due to prolonged inaction by authorities?

2. Do third-party purchasers acquire legal rights over unauthorised constructions?

3. Are demolition orders valid if procedural safeguards are adhered to?

Judicial Reasoning

1. No Legitimisation of Illegality

The Court unequivocally held:

"Illegality cannot be legitimised by the passage of time or regulatory lapses. Unauthorized constructions must be addressed with an iron hand."

Relying on precedents like K. Ramadas Shenoy and Supertech Ltd., the Court emphasised that administrative inaction does not grant legality to unauthorised constructions. The appellants’ claim of adverse possession was dismissed, as they purchased the property with knowledge of its unauthorised status.

2. Doctrine of Caveat Emptor

The Court invoked the doctrine of Caveat Emptor (buyer beware), noting:

"The buyer has a duty to verify the title and legality of the property before purchase. Ignorance of violations cannot shield them from consequences."

Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act imposes a duty on sellers to disclose defects in title. The Court found that neither the original allottee nor the appellants fulfilled their legal obligations.

3. Regulatory Accountability

The judgment strongly criticised the collusion between officials and violators, stating:

"Regulatory inefficiency and collusion embolden violators, undermining planned urban development."

The Court directed strict compliance with statutory obligations, penalising errant officials who failed to act against violations.

Significant Observations

1. On Demolition:

   "Unauthorized constructions must be demolished unless they meet exceptional criteria for regularisation, which must prioritise public interest."

2. On Public Interest:

   "Planning laws are not individual-centric but designed to serve the larger public and environmental interests."

3. On Regularisation:

   "Regularisation schemes should be rare and limited to cases that do not compromise public safety, environmental sustainability, or urban planning."

Impact and Implications

This judgment sets critical benchmarks for handling unauthorised constructions:

1. Strengthened Urban Planning: Authorities must enforce building regulations strictly, ensuring no deviations occur.

2. Enhanced Accountability: Officials complicit in violations face penalties, promoting transparency in governance.

3. Buyer Awareness: Prospective buyers must conduct due diligence to avoid entanglement in legal disputes.

4. Clear Stance Against Delay: Delay in acting against unauthorised constructions cannot nullify the illegality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad reaffirms the importance of enforcing planning laws and holding violators accountable. The Court’s directive to demolish unauthorised constructions underscores its commitment to safeguarding urban integrity.

As the Court aptly noted:

"Justice demands that laws be enforced with vigilance and fairness, ensuring that no violator, however influential, escapes accountability."

This judgment serves as a guiding precedent for addressing unauthorised constructions, balancing individual rights with the collective good.