Illegal Constructions Can’t Be Regularised Irrespective Of Long Occupancy And Investments: SC
Illegal Constructions Cannot Be Regularised Irrespective of Long Occupancy and Investments: Supreme Court
Context
Illegal constructions refer to buildings or structures erected without necessary permissions, approvals, or in violation of zoning/building laws and regulations.
Often, occupants claim that their constructions should be regularised because of:
Long-term occupancy,
Substantial investment,
And reliance on the structure for livelihood or residence.
The question is whether such illegal constructions can be legalised or regularised merely due to these factors.
Supreme Court’s Position
The Supreme Court of India has held firmly that illegal constructions cannot be regularised simply because they have existed for a long time or because occupants have made investments.
Regularising such violations would amount to rewarding illegality and undermining the rule of law and urban planning regulations.
It would set a dangerous precedent encouraging further violations of building norms.
Key Legal Principles
Rule of Law and Urban Planning
Building regulations, zoning laws, and land-use policies serve to ensure safety, planned urban development, and environmental protection.
Ignoring illegal constructions or regularising them compromises these objectives.
Upholding legality is paramount, regardless of how long the violation has continued.
No Right Created by Illegal Act
Possession or occupancy of an illegal structure, however long, does not confer any legal right or title.
Investments made after the illegality arose do not validate the illegal act.
The principle of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” applies — no legal claim arises from an illegal act.
Public Interest and Safety
Illegal constructions may compromise public safety, fire regulations, structural integrity, and sanitation.
Courts prioritize the larger public interest over private inconvenience caused by demolition or non-regularisation.
No Estoppel Against Statute
Prolonged illegal occupation does not create an estoppel against enforcement of statutory regulations.
Statutory authorities retain the right and duty to enforce compliance.
Relevant Supreme Court Case Laws
1. Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2018)
The Court observed that illegal constructions violate statutory norms and cannot be regularised based on occupancy or investment.
Authorities must take action to remove illegal structures to uphold urban planning laws.
2. S. Raju v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2016)
Held that investment or improvements made on illegal constructions do not confer any protection or right to regularisation.
Illegal structures are liable to be demolished irrespective of occupancy.
3. B.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986)
Affirmed that no person can claim a right over illegal constructions, and their removal cannot be prevented by long possession.
The public interest in enforcing building codes prevails.
4. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (1996)
The Court reiterated that regularisation of illegal construction is not permissible, regardless of how old the building is.
Such regularisation amounts to defiance of the law.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Held that allowing illegal constructions based on long occupancy would encourage lawlessness and violate constitutional mandate of the rule of law.
Practical Implications
Municipal and development authorities are empowered and expected to take strict action against illegal constructions.
Occupants and investors in such structures cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right.
Urban planners and courts emphasize strict compliance with building regulations to ensure safety and orderly development.
Individuals and builders must obtain proper approvals and permissions before construction.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Illegal construction | Cannot be regularised irrespective of occupancy or investment |
| Long-term occupancy | Does not confer any legal right |
| Investment in illegal structures | Does not validate illegality |
| Public interest | Prevails over private inconvenience |
| Authority’s power | To remove or demolish illegal constructions |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India clearly mandates that illegal constructions cannot be regularised merely on the basis of long-term occupancy or investments made by occupants. The enforcement of building laws, public safety, and orderly urban development take precedence over such claims. This principle ensures that the rule of law is maintained and discourages further illegal construction activities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments