New Directions in Urban Planning: Enforcing GRUDA, 2022 for Regularisation of Unauthorised Developments

Introduction

The judgment in Sharifbhai Hasambhai Sakaryani v. State of Gujarat delivered on February 3, 2025, by the Gujarat High Court, marks a significant development in the regulation and regularisation of unauthorised constructions in the State of Gujarat. The case primarily deals with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by a former Municipal Councillor who raised concerns over a series of unauthorised constructions. These constructions were alleged as being illegal, and the petitioner sought a writ of direction to compel the relevant municipal authorities to take necessary action against the developers.

Central to the dispute are the directives and provisions of the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2022 (GRUDA, 2022) and its subsequent amendments, notably Gujarat Act No. 1 of 2023 and Gujarat Act No. 3 of 2023. The judgment not only clarifies procedural aspects related to the pending applications but also reinforces the legal pathway available to parties involved in unauthorised development.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s order addresses multiple facets of the litigation:

Removal of Past Remarks: The court expunged earlier critical comments regarding courtroom conduct, following expressed regret by the counsel involved.
Withdrawal of Applications: The petitioner’s requests to withdraw two civil applications were acknowledged and dismissed as withdrawn.
Core Dispute - Unauthorised Developments: The PIL, which dates back to 2011, is centered on unauthorised constructions raised by private respondents. The court noted the protracted nature of the litigation (over 14 years) and established that the contentious issues should be processed at the level of the designated authority under GRUDA, 2022.
Directive to Private Respondents: The court directed respondents (private developers) to submit their regularisation applications before the designated authority in accordance with the provisions of GRUDA, 2022. A timeline for filing applications and conducting personal hearings was also set.
Scope of GRUDA, 2022: The order reiterated essential definitions and procedures as laid down in GRUDA, 2022 – including the definition of “Unauthorised Development,” eligibility criteria for regularisation, fee structures, and specific exclusions where regularisation is not permitted.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment refers indirectly to several past procedural and legal principles that guide litigation involving unauthorised constructions:

Procedural Fairness: Earlier remarks regarding lawyer conduct were clarified, emphasizing that dissenting views in court do not justify a request for recusal of judges. This reiterates the standing principle that differences in legal interpretation should be addressed through proper legal channels rather than through requests for judicial disqualification.
Prior Orders on Construction Regulations: There is an inherited line of cases where courts have intervened to prevent further unauthorised construction pending regulatory review. The present judgment builds upon these decisions by mandating adherence to statutory requirements under GRUDA, 2022.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s decision rests on a careful evaluation of both the allegations raised in the PIL and the statutory framework provided by GRUDA, 2022. Key reasoning elements include:

Separation of Proceedings: The court distinguishes between the contempt proceedings related to a previous interim order and the merits of the current PIL. It made clear that, although the contempt application concerned non-compliance of directions issued in 2012, it should not affect the final resolution of the case.
Legislative Framework Supremacy: GRUDA, 2022 is given primacy as the statutory instrument designed to streamline the process for regularising unauthorised developments. The court noted that, with the enactment of this statute, grievances regarding such developments can be more appropriately managed by the designated authority rather than through prolonged PIL litigation.
Application Mechanism under GRUDA, 2022: The judgment details the statutory provisions – from Section 5 to Section 12 – which govern the application process, fee payment, conditions prohibiting regularisation (such as developments on government land or those violating fire safety norms) and the appointment of appellate officers. This systematic review by the court underlines its commitment to ensuring that regulatory procedures are followed and that decisions are made on merits.

Impact on Future Cases and Legal Framework

The judgment is poised to have far-reaching implications:

Streamlined Resolution Mechanism: By directing private respondents to approach the designated authority rather than pursuing protracted litigation, the court has established a faster, more efficient ordinance for addressing unauthorised constructions.
Enhanced Accountability: The emphasis on reasoned, timely decisions by the designated authority sets a clear benchmark for administrative accountability, providing relief for applicants who have been affected by delayed proceedings.
Precedent for Urban Development Cases: Future cases related to unauthorised development in municipal and urban contexts are likely to be assessed in light of the structured statutory framework upheld in this judgment. The decision reinforces the legislative intent behind GRUDA, 2022 and provides a procedural roadmap for resolving similar issues.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal and technical concepts are central to this decision:

Unauthorised Development: As defined in GRUDA, 2022, this term refers to any construction or development carried out without the requisite approvals or in violation of existing building regulations. The judgment clarifies that even if a permission is later obtained, if the development does not adhere to prescribed conditions, it remains unauthorised.
Designated Authority: This is the official body – such as the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer of the Municipality – empowered to process applications for regularisation and ensure compliance with statutory regulations.
Regularisation Process: An application under GRUDA, 2022 allows a property owner or occupier to seek legal sanction for an unauthorised development. It involves scrutinizing the construction for conformity with health, safety, and urban planning norms, followed by a fee-based regularisation order if the criteria are met.
Exclusions and Limitations: The Act specifies specific cases where regularisation cannot be permitted – for example, on government land or where safety norms are compromised. This is intended to safeguard public interest and maintain urban planning standards.

Conclusion

In summation, the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Sharifbhai Hasambhai Sakaryani v. State of Gujarat offers a clarity-filled roadmap on handling cases of unauthorised development through the lens of newly enacted statutory provisions under GRUDA, 2022. Key takeaways include:

A clear demarcation between the roles of judicial intervention and administrative regulation in resolving conflicts over unauthorised constructions.
An affirmation of the legislative intent behind GRUDA, 2022, prioritizing expedited and merit-based review of regularisation applications.
A solid framework for ensuring accountability and expeditious processing of long-pending cases, ultimately benefiting stakeholders and upholding urban planning norms.

This judgment is likely to serve as an influential precedent in future cases, reinforcing that administrative bodies – rather than prolonged litigation – should be the arena for resolving disputes over unauthorised developments. It underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach to urban regulation, ensuring that the rights of both authorities and private citizens are balanced in the pursuit of legal and regulatory certainty.