{"id":6854,"date":"2025-01-02T08:03:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-02T02:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/no-business-licenses-or-loans-for-unauthorised-construction-sc\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:22:59","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T11:52:59","slug":"no-business-licenses-or-loans-for-unauthorised-construction-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6854","title":{"rendered":"No Business Licenses or Loans for Unauthorised Construction: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment aimed at eradicating unauthorized constructions and promoting accountability in urban planning. The judgement, rendered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, provides directives in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures. <\/u><\/em> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

<\/u><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The case originated from an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s order mandating the demolition of unauthorized commercial structures erected on a residential plot in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants, who had purchased the commercial shops from the original allottee, argued for regularization of the structures on the grounds of prolonged occupancy and alleged administrative lapses. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The property in question was originally allotted to Respondent No. 5 by the U.P. Housing and Development Board (Respondent No. 1) under a scheme designed for residential purposes. Despite this, Respondent No. 5, in collaboration with Respondent No. 6, initiated commercial construction on the property without obtaining necessary approvals. Notices issued to halt the unauthorized construction were ignored, compelling the competent authority to pass a demolition order in 2011. However, due to inadequate enforcement and alleged collusion between local authorities and violators, the illegal structures remained.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The appellants contended that they were bona fide purchasers who had invested substantial sums in acquiring the shops. They claimed ignorance of the illegality at the time of purchase and argued that the structures had existed for over two decades without interference. They also alleged a "pick-and-choose" approach by the authorities, pointing out similar violations in the vicinity that had not faced action.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court emphasized that illegality is incurable and upheld the High Court’s demolition order. It ruled that the passage of time, financial investments, and administrative inaction do not legitimize unauthorized constructions. The Court observed:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

"The lapses on the part of the authorities will not vest any person with a right to put up construction without planning approval and in violation of the conditions regarding usage.”<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

“There cannot be any estoppel against the law.”<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The bench criticized the failure of regulatory authorities, stating that their negligence had emboldened violators and compromised the integrity of urban planning. It held that allowing such structures to stand would undermine public trust in the enforcement of laws and incentivize further violations.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

To curb unauthorized constructions and enforce urban planning norms, the Court issued directives in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures<\/u><\/em>: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n