- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Syed Muzaffar Ali And Others v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi .
Summary of the Order
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners challenged orders concerning structural changes made to a building, which the tribunal found to be unauthorised construction based on the report of Sri V.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer-cum-Commissioner. [1][2] The Court heard counsel for both sides and considered the petitioners’ special leave petitions. [3][2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the structural changes made by the petitioners amounted to “construction.” [1]
- Whether the impugned orders were invalid because notice had not been served upon the petitioners. [1]
- Whether unauthorised construction necessarily warranted demolition or could be considered for compounding or regularisation. [4][5]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The structural changes made to the building did not amount to “construction.” [1]
- No notice had been served upon them before the impugned orders were made. [1]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the petitioners’ objection concerning notice, finding no justification for concluding that service had not been effected. [2]
Regarding the character of the structural changes, the Court relied on the tribunal’s assessment, which was based on the report of Sri V.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer-cum-Commissioner. The nature and extent of the changes supported the finding that they constituted unauthorised construction. [2]
The Court nevertheless clarified that deviation from an authorised plan or construction without sanction does not automatically and invariably justify demolition. Some unauthorised constructions may be compounded, while grave breaches of licensing provisions or building regulations may warrant demolition. [4]
The appropriate authorities must determine the proper relief by considering the nature of the transgressions. The petitioners could submit a plan identifying the unauthorised construction and seek regularisation, if legally permissible, together with a stay of demolition while that request was considered. [5]
Holding and Implications
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS DISMISSED. The Court found no merit in either the petitioners’ notice objection or their contention that the structural changes did not constitute unauthorised construction. [2][6]
The dismissal did not prevent the authorities from considering any legally available compounding or regularisation. The petitioners were permitted to approach the authorities within one week, and demolition was prohibited during that one-week period. [5] The order determined the parties’ immediate rights and provided a route to seek administrative relief; it set no new precedent.
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the structural changes brought about by the petitioners in respect of the building do not amount to ‘construction’ and that, at all events, no notice had been served on them before the impugned orders were made.
3. We reject both the contentions. There is no justification to hold that service was not effected. As to the nature and extent of structural changes, the tribunal relied upon the report of Sri V.P Gupta, Assistant Engineer-cum-Commissioner to reach the finding that the structural changes brought about, having regard to their nature and extent, did constitute ‘constructions’ unauthorisedly made. We, therefore, find no merit in the special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed.
4. However, it is to be pointed out that the mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure. There are cases and cases of such unauthorised constructions. Some are amenable to compounding and some may not be. There may be cases of grave and serious breaches of the licensing provisions or building regulations that may call for the extreme step of demolition.
5. These are matters for the authorities to consider at the appropriate time having regard to nature of the transgressions. It is open to the petitioners to move the authorities for such relief as may be available to them at law. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a plan indicating the nature and extent of the unauthorised constructions carried out and seek regularisation, if such regularisation is permissible. The dismissal of the petitions will not stand in the way of the authorities examining and granting such relief as the petitioners may be entitled to under law. The petitioners may move the authorities in this behalf within one week for such compounding or regularisation and also for stay of demolition pending consideration of their prayer. During the period of one week from today, however, no demolition shall be made.
6. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Alert