Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Commercial Constructions in Meerut
The Supreme Court of India, in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., has upheld the demolition order against unauthorized commercial constructions on residential plots in Meerut’s Shastri Nagar Yojna No.7. The judgment, delivered by J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the appeals of shop owners and upheld the Allahabad High Court’s directive mandating the demolition of illegal structures.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a writ petition filed by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad seeking the demolition of unauthorized commercial construction on plot no.661/6 in Meerut. The plot was originally allotted for residential purposes but was converted into a commercial space without approval.
The High Court, in its order dated December 5, 2014, directed:
- The District Magistrate and police officials to execute the demolition order by December 31, 2014.
- Criminal proceedings against those involved in illegal construction.
- Departmental action against officials who allowed the unauthorized construction.
The shop owners challenged the demolition order in the Supreme Court, claiming violation of their rights.
Legal Issues Considered
- Was the demolition order valid despite the structures being in existence for over 24 years?
- Did the failure to serve notices to shop owners violate the principles of natural justice?
- Did the High Court err in directing demolition without considering regularization?
Arguments by the Petitioners (Shop Owners)
The shop owners, represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Gupta, contended:
- The structures had been in place for over two decades, and the authorities had failed to act earlier.
- The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had converted the plot from leasehold to freehold without objections.
- No notice was served to individual shop owners before issuing the demolition order.
- Regularization should have been considered instead of demolition.
Arguments by the Respondents (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad)
The respondents, represented by Additional Solicitor General Ravi Verma, countered:
- The plot was originally allotted for residential purposes, and the owners illegally converted it for commercial use.
- Multiple notices were issued to stop the unauthorized construction, but they were ignored.
- The shop owners purchased the property knowing it was unauthorized and cannot claim protection.
- The High Court’s order was necessary to maintain planned urban development.
Supreme Court’s Observations
On the Legality of Demolition
The Court observed:
“Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized merely due to the passage of time. A violation of zoning laws remains illegal regardless of the number of years the structure has stood.”
On the Failure to Serve Notices
The Court noted:
“Notices were served on the original allottee, and shop owners were aware of the unauthorized status. Lack of direct notice does not invalidate the demolition order.”
On Regularization as an Alternative
The Court rejected the argument for regularization:
“Regularization is an exception, not a rule. Authorities cannot be forced to legitimize illegal constructions.”
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and issued the following directives:
- The demolition order is upheld, and authorities must execute it within three months.
- The shop owners must vacate the premises voluntarily within the given period.
- Authorities must ensure demolition occurs without selective enforcement.
- Departmental and criminal proceedings must be initiated against officials and individuals responsible for illegal construction.
- The Rs. 10 lakh deposit made by the petitioners in 2014 shall be refunded.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications:
- Upholds urban planning regulations and prevents unauthorized commercialization.
- Reinforces legal action against encroachers and officials who fail to act.
- Clarifies that lapse in enforcement does not legitimize illegal constructions.
The judgment serves as a strong precedent in preventing unauthorized urban sprawl and ensuring compliance with zoning laws.
Petitioner Name: Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr..Respondent Name: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors..Judgment By: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan.Place Of Incident: Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Date: 17-12-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: rajendra-kumar-barja-vs-u.p.-avas-evam-vikas-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-12-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Mahadevan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
