Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner, a resident of Harur Taluk, seeking a direction from the High Court to the Executive Officer of the Harur Selection Grade Town Panchayat (second respondent) to demolish an unauthorized building constructed by the third respondent on Plot No. 29, Ward No.12, Govindhasami Nagar, Mettupatti Village. The construction was undertaken without obtaining the mandatory building plan approval from the competent authority. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the first respondent (Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning Department) and the second respondent. Upon joint inspection, the authorities found that the third respondent had indeed commenced construction without plan approval. Consequently, a stop work notice dated 28.11.2023 was issued to the third respondent. Subsequently, the third respondent applied for regularization of the unauthorized construction, but the application was rejected by the competent authority on 23.11.2023. Despite the stop work notice and rejection of regularization, the construction continued, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The third respondent argued that the complaint was motivated by personal animosity and the litigation was a result of a personal rivalry. The court, however, held that rivalry litigation is not a valid ground to reject the relief sought if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to it under law. The court relied upon the binding precedents of the Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2024, which categorically state that there cannot be any leniency in matters of unauthorized construction and such illegal structures must be demolished. The court’s analysis focused on the statutory obligation to obtain building plan approval and the zero tolerance policy towards unauthorized constructions, regardless of the complainant’s motive. The court found the construction patently illegal and underscored that personal animosity cannot override the rule of law. Accordingly, the writ petition was taken up for orders with a direction to the second respondent to take necessary action for demolition in terms of the stop work notice. The final order emphasized that unauthorized constructions must be removed without exception.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Enforcement of Building Regulations - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought a mandamus to demolish an unauthorized building constructed by the third respondent without building plan approval. The respondents inspected and issued a stop work notice; the third respondent’s regularization application was rejected. The third respondent contended the petitioner acted out of personal animosity. The court held that rivalry litigation cannot be a sole ground to deny relief if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to it in law. Referring to Supreme Court decisions in Esha Ekta Apartments and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya, the court reiterated that there can be no leniency in matters of unauthorized construction and it must be demolished. Held, that the personal motive of the complainant is irrelevant when the construction is patently illegal. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to demolish an unauthorised construction despite the builder's plea of personal animosity motivating the complaint.
Law Points
- unauthorized construction must be demolished
- personal animosity not a defence against statutory violation
- Supreme Court precedents mandate strict removal
- building plan approval is mandatory
- writ of mandamus maintainable to enforce civic regulations
