We cannot allow unauthorised constructions to go on, says SC

THe sublime margaret court on mon took a isaac stern consider against unauthorised constructions, cautioning courts against allowing violators to walk free merely because municipal rules permit compounding of illegal structures on payment of fees.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said the correct course in such cases was demolition of illegal constructions, along with recovery of demolition costs and imposition of exemplary penalties on offenders.“If we allow a petition like this, people will encroach upon even public roads and premises while citing some rule that it is compoundable and dragging the authorities in courts for decades,” observed the bench, refusing to entertain a plea challenging the demolition of unauthorised constructions in Secunderabad.The court underlined that permitting post-facto regularisation of illegal structures would defeat the rule of law and embolden rampant encroachments.“In fact, authorities in such cases must not only raze down such unauthorised constructions but also penalise the offenders with the penalty and the cost of pulling down such constructions. Let the message go that it won’t be permitted by courts,” added the bench.The observations came while dismissing a petition filed against a Telangana High Court judgment in November that directed removal of illegal constructions raised without permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board.During the hearing, senior advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the high court had ordered demolition despite the constructions being “compoundable” under applicable rules.Rejecting the submission outright, the bench responded: “So, we should allow you to construct anything and then let you apply for compounding? That can’t be.”Earlier, the bench had made it clear that unauthorised constructions could not be protected merely because a plea of compounding was available under municipal regulations. “We cannot allow unauthorised constructions to go on just because the claim is that it’s compoundable,” the bench had said.The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a dispute between members of an Army Welfare Cooperative Housing Society in Secunderabad, where one resident was accused of illegally occupying common open space and raising unauthorised structures.According to the Telangana High Court’s order delivered last month, the plaintiff, TGK Mahadev, alleged that the defendant, Amitesh Jeet Singh, had taken advantage of his absence from India to encroach upon open space in front of the dwelling unit and construct a room, besides extending the roof area on all sides.The plaintiff contended that the illegal construction severely affected his fundamental rights to air, light, ventilation, privacy and easementary rights, and was contrary to the approved layout plan of the housing society.The high court recorded that the defendant had admitted to carrying out new constructions without obtaining any permission from the competent authority, namely the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. The court also noted that the society’s bye-laws did not permit any alteration or modification of dwelling units without prior approval and that the defendant had earlier given an affidavit undertaking not to make any construction in the open area.The high court rejected the defence that the dispute was purely inter se between society members. It held that illegal constructions affected not just neighbouring residents but also involved violations of statutory regulations, making the Cantonment Board an aggrieved and competent authority to act.“No person is entitled to make construction without permission of the competent sanctioning authority,” the high court observed, adding that the constructions were per se illegal and unauthorised.Allowing the appeal in part, the high court directed the defendant to remove the illegal construction within one month, failing which the Cantonment Board was granted liberty to initiate action in accordance with law.