Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by third-party purchasers of commercial shops constructed on a residential plot originally allotted to Veer Singh by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Housing Board) in 1986. The plot was converted to freehold in 2004 with a condition for residential use only. Despite show cause notices, the allottee constructed commercial shops without sanction. The Housing Board passed a demolition order on 31.05.2011 but could not execute it due to lack of police cooperation. The Board filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which on 05.12.2014 directed demolition by 31.12.2014, initiation of criminal proceedings against the allottee and officers, and departmental action. The appellants, who purchased shops from the allottee, challenged the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants cannot claim rights over unauthorized construction, the Board's action was not barred by delay or laches, and no notice was required to be given to the appellants as they were aware of the illegality. The Court affirmed the High Court's directions.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Unauthorized Construction - Demolition - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, Sections 82, 92-94 - The original allottee of a residential plot constructed commercial shops without sanction. The Housing Board issued show cause notices and passed a demolition order. The High Court directed demolition and initiation of criminal/departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellants, who purchased shops from the original allottee, cannot claim any right over unauthorized construction, and the Housing Board's action is not barred by delay or laches. (Paras 5-7) B) Natural Justice - Notice to Third Parties - Principles of Natural Justice - The appellants, being subsequent purchasers of unauthorized shops, were not entitled to notice before demolition as their rights were created in violation of law. The Housing Board had no knowledge of the transfers, and the appellants were aware of the illegal nature of the construction at the time of purchase. (Para 7.1(ii)) C) Limitation - Delay and Laches - Demolition of Unauthorized Construction - The Housing Board had been issuing notices since 1990 and passed a demolition order in 2011. The delay in execution was due to non-cooperation of authorities, not acquiescence. The right to demolish unauthorized construction is not lost by delay. (Para 7.1(iii)) D) Estoppel - Acquiescence - Statutory Authority - The Housing Board's action cannot be barred by acquiescence or estoppel as the construction was patently illegal and the Board acted within its statutory duty. (Para 7.1(iv))
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in ordering demolition of unauthorized commercial construction on a residential plot without issuing notice to the appellants who are subsequent purchasers of shops, and whether the claim of the appellants for regularization or protection on grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence is tenable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's order directing demolition of unauthorized construction, initiation of criminal proceedings against the allottee and responsible officers, and departmental action. No costs.
Law Points
- Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized merely due to passage of time
- Purchaser of property constructed in violation of law cannot claim better title than original allottee
- Principles of natural justice do not require notice to third-party purchasers when construction is patently illegal
- Delay and laches cannot be a defense against demolition of unauthorized construction
- Acquiescence and estoppel do not apply when statutory authority acts against illegal construction
