While highlighting the fact that law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority.

The Supreme Court was considering a Special Leave Petition where the petitioner sought the regularisation of an unauthorised construction.

Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Rahul Arya represented the Respondent.

Referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2024), the Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.”

The Bench noted that in its earlier order, the High Court had directed the police authorities to give notice to all the occupants to vacate the premises by themselves by April 30, 2025. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation was also asked to inspect all the neighbouring properties to figure out any violations. Affirming the High Court’s view, the Bench said, “We admire the courage and conviction with which the High Court has proceeded to take care of unauthorised construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public interest.”

Rejecting the submission for regularisation, the Bench remarked, “A person who has no regard for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularisation after putting up unauthorised construction of two floors. This has something to do with the rule of law. Unauthorised construction has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion would be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. We are at pains to observe that the aforesaid aspect has not been kept in mind by many State Governments while enacting Regularisation of Unauthorized Development Act based on payment of impact fees.”

Thus, asking the Courts to adopt a stricter approach in such matters, the Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Cause Title: Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 610)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan, AOR Soumya Dutta, Advocates Saurabh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, A

Respondent: Advocates Rahul Arya, Abdul Hamid Molla, Ritik Dwivedi, AOR Rohit Amit Sthalekar

Click here to read/download Order





Justice JB PardiwalaJustice R Mahadevan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.