KANIZ AHMEDversusSABUDDIN & ORS.

          [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2467 : 2025 INSC 610

                        Kaniz Ahmed
                             v.
                       Sabuddin & Ors.
 (Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 12199-12200 of 2025)
                          30 April 2025
        [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction in public
interest by directing the KMC to initiate demolition of the
unauthorised construction.

                            Headnotes†
Unauthorised Construction – The High Court directed the
police authorities to give notice to all the occupants to vacate
the unauthorised constructed premises by themselves – In
case, they continued to remain in occupation, it was directed
that the occupants to be evicted by deployment of adequate
police force – After the vacation of premises, the KMC
authority was directed to initiate demolition of the unauthorised
construction – Correctness:
Held: The High Court has rightly proceeded to take care of
unauthorised construction in exercise of its jurisdiction in public
interest – In Rajendra Kumar Barjatya case, it has been made
clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously
following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations – In the
event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts,
the same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or
mercy shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction
would amount to showing misplaced sympathy – Also, 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. [Paras 5, 7]
2468                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                             Case Law Cited
     Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
     Parishad and Others, 2024 INSC 990 : [2024] 12 SCR 1320 –
     referred to.
     Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (C) No.
     10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court) – referred to.

                             List of Keywords
     Unauthorised construction; Eviction; Deployment of police force;
     Rules and regulations; Requisite permissions; Regularisation of
     buildings; Judicial regularisation.

                            Case Arising From
     EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
     Petition (Civil) No(s). 12199-12200 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2025 and 22.04.2025
     of the High Court at Calcutta in WPA (P) No. 288 of 2024 and
     RVW No. 104 of 2025 respectively

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., Soumya Dutta, Saurabh
     Prasad, Tushar Srivastava, Vishal Sinha.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Rahul Arya, Abdul Hamid Molla, Ritik Dwivedi, Rohit Amit Sthalekar.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

1.   Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2.   The High Court in Paras 21 and 22 of its impugned judgment and
     order has observed thus:-
          “21. Therefore, the police authorities are directed to
          give notice to all the occupants to vacate the premises
          by themselves by April 30, 2025. If any of them still
          continued to remain in occupation, they shall be evicted
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            2469

                     Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors.


           by deployment of adequate police force and such process
           shall be completed by not later than May 16, 2025. After
           the three floors are vacated, the KMC authority shall initiate
           demolition proceedings for which also the police authorities
           shall deploy adequate police force and such demolition
           shall be completed and a report be filed before this Court
           supported by photographs on June 19, 2025. During the
           process of vacating the occupants of the building as well
           as during the process of demolition, the entire events shall
           be videographed and such cost shall be borne by KMC.
           22. Needless to state that this writ petition being a public
           interest litigation, it goes without saying that not only
           the construction, which has been put up by the private
           respondents is to be dealt with, but the KMC authority
           should also cause inspection of all the neighbouring
           properties and if any violation is found, the above directions
           will apply mutatis mutandis to such constructions as well.
           Of course, action be taken after issuing notice to the
           owners/occupants of those properties”.
3.   We are in complete agreement with what has been observed by the
     High Court in the above referred paragraphs.
4.   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.
5.   In one of our recent pronouncements, in the case of Rajendra Kumar
     Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others
     reported in 2024 INSC 990, we have made ourselves very explicitly
     clear that each and every construction must be made scrupulously
     following and strictly adhering to the rules and regulations. In the
     event of any violation, being brought to the notice of the courts, the
     same should be dealt with iron hands and any leniency or mercy
     shown to the person guilty of unauthorised construction would amount
     to showing misplaced sympathy. In our decision referred to above,
     we have issued the following directions:
           “(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an
           undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the
           case may be, to the effect that possession of the building
2470                                                       [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/
        beneficiaries only after obtaining completion/occupation
        certificate from the authorities concerned.
        (ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be displayed
        at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan
        during the entire period of construction and the authorities
        concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and
        maintain a record of such inspection in their official records.
        (iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being
        satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance
        with the building planning permission given and there
        is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the
        completion/occupation certificate in respect of residential /
        commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned
        to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If
        any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance
        with the Act and the process of issuance of completion/
        occupation certificate should be deferred, unless and until
        the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.
        (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as,
        Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall
        be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings
        only after the production of the completion/occupation
        certificate.
        (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation /
        violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought
        to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken
        by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law,
        against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official,
        who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /
        occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally
        forthwith.
        (vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/
        trade must be given by any authorities including local
        bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized
        building irrespective of it being residential or commercial
        building.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              2471

                     Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin & Ors.


           (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal
           plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and
           usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place
           and in consideration of the larger public interest and the
           impact on the environment.
           (viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective
           authority under the planning department/local body for
           co-operation from another department to take action
           against any unauthorized construction, the latter shall
           render immediate assistance and co-operation and any
           delay or dereliction would be viewed seriously. The States/
           UT must also take disciplinary action against the erring
           officials once it is brought to their knowledge.
           (ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision being
           filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of
           completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised
           construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall
           be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the
           pending appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible,
           in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.
           (x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier directions
           issued by this court and those being passed today, they
           would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation
           before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building
           constructions would come down drastically. Hence,
           necessary instructions should be issued by all the State/
           UT Governments in the form of Circular to all concerned
           with a warning that all directions must be scrupulously
           followed and failure to do so will be viewed seriously,
           with departmental action being initiated against the erring
           officials as per law.
           (xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan against
           any building as a security only after verifying the completion/
           occupation certificate issued to a building on production
           of the same by the parties concerned.
           (xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead
           to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the
           prosecution under the respective laws.”
2472                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports



6.   The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
     that her client be given one chance to pray for regularisation of
     the unauthorised construction. We do not find any merit in such
     submission. A person who has no regards 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.
7.   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.[See:
     Ashok Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No. 10233
     of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]
8.   The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
9.   Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
10. Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this order to all
    the High Courts.

     Result of the case: SLPs dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan