States often try to enrich themselves through regularisation of illegal constructions: SC

The Supreme Court has held that State govt often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by ratifying building violations. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court has held that State governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning or ratifying building violations or illegal constructions.

The court said such State governments were unmindful of the fact that whatever “gain” by condonation or regularisation of illegal constructions was insignificant compared to the long-term damage caused to orderly urban development and environment.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan declared that “regularisation schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances and as a one-time measure for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment, availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water bodies/rivers and larger public interest”.

The judgment was based on a batch of appeals challenging illegal commercial constructions in Uttar Pradesh.

“Unauthorised constructions, apart from posing a threat to the life of the occupants and the citizens living nearby, also have an effect on resources such as electricity, groundwater and access to roads, which are primarily designed to be made available in orderly development and authorised activities,” Justice Mahadevan, who authored the judgment, observed.

The Supreme Court held that its recent judgment in the bulldozer demolitions provided safeguards against punitive demolitions, but the verdict did not condone illegal constructions.

Constructions which audaciously violate building plan approval could not be encouraged. Courts must deal with such violations with an iron hand. “Any lenience would amount to showing misplaced sympathy,” Justice Mahadevan cautioned.

A master plan or zonal development could not be individual-centric, but should have larger public interest in mind. Officials who turn a Nelson’s eye on illegal constructions must not be allowed to go scot-free, Justice Mahadevan emphasised.

‘Undertaking must’

In a series of directions, the court ordered that while issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking had to be henceforth obtained from the builder or applicant that possession of the building would be handed over to the owners only after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the authorities concerned.

Other directions include the builder must display a copy of the approved plan at the construction site at all times; authorities must inspect the site periodically and keep records of their findings; electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., should be given by the service provider only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate; no permission or licence to conduct business or trade must be given in any unauthorised building; the development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage; banks/financial institutions should sanction loan against any building as a security only after verifying the completion/occupation certificate; and the violation of any of the directions would lead to contempt proceedings and prosecution.