LexKANIZ AHMED versus SABUDDIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.