The Supreme Court of India, in Kaniz Ahmed vs Sabuddin & Ors. (SLP (C) Nos.12199-12200/2025), has dismissed a plea seeking regularisation of unauthorised construction, affirming the Calcutta High Court’s order that mandated demolition of illegally constructed floors and strict enforcement action. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan commended the High Court for its firm stance in protecting the rule of law and upholding public interest.
Background
The case arose from public interest litigation concerning unauthorised construction in a multi-storey building. The Calcutta High Court had issued detailed directions for eviction of illegal occupants and demolition of the offending structures. In its judgment, the High Court directed the police to serve eviction notices to all unauthorised occupants and, if necessary, use force to ensure eviction by May 16, 2025. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) was instructed to complete the demolition and submit a report with photographic evidence by June 19, 2025. The entire process was to be videographed, with costs borne by the KMC.
Additionally, the High Court ordered inspections of nearby buildings to detect any similar violations and apply the same directions mutatis mutandis, with prior notice to affected parties.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court expressed its full agreement with the reasoning and directives laid down by the High Court. The Bench stated:
“We admire the courage and conviction with which the High Court has proceeded to take care of unauthorised construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public interest.”
Referring to its own earlier ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. (2024 INSC 990), the Court reiterated the mandatory nature of compliance with building regulations and condemned any leniency towards violators. The judgment reiterated that illegal constructions must be dealt with an “iron hand” and that any show of sympathy would be “misplaced.”
The apex court further issued a reminder of the procedural safeguards and duties of authorities as laid down in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya, including:
- Builders must undertake to hand over possession only after obtaining completion certificates.
- Approved plans must be displayed at construction sites throughout the construction period.
- No services (electricity, water, sewage) shall be provided without valid occupancy certificates.
- Any deviations post-issuance of completion certificates must be penalised.
- Banks must verify completion/occupancy certificates before sanctioning loans.
- Delays or failures by officials to enforce these rules should invite disciplinary action.
Firm Stance Against Regularisation of Illegal Structures
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for regularisation, the Court made it unequivocally clear that:
“A person who has no regards for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out.”
It further observed that judicial discretion in such matters must be guided by statutory obligations and not misplaced sympathy. Courts are not free from “statutory fetters,” and the duty to render justice must align with the law.
The Bench cited the Delhi High Court’s observations in Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, noting:
“The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours… if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and disposed of all pending applications. It also directed the Registry to circulate copies of the judgment to all High Courts for awareness and potential action in similar matters.
