Third Parties Can Move Court Against Inaction On Unauthorised Construction, Illegal Buildings Burden Civic Amenities: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair has held that a third party or public-spirited citizen can approach the writ court against the failure of municipal authorities to act against unauthorized construction, observing that such structures burden civic amenities and pose safety hazards to the public.
A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee made the observation while upholding, subject to consideration of the applicable regularization scheme, directions for demolition of unauthorized portions of a hotel building in Sri Vijaya Puram.
The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the writ petitioner had no locus to seek implementation of a demolition order concerning the construction, since he had no connection with the property.
The Bench relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in *Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation*, observing that a public-spirited citizen can bring unauthorized construction to the notice of the regulatory and permission-granting authorities.
"Rampant unauthorized construction in urban areas is a burden on the civic amenities. It is also a safety hazard," the Court observed.
"Such constructions deny other citizens a dignified living by causing risks, inconveniences and hardships," it added.
The Bench held that where the public at large are likely to be affected by an infraction of law and the competent authority remains complacent or fails to ensure demolition of unauthorized construction, the writ court can be approached to challenge such inaction.
"A writ petition was maintainable at the instance of such third party," the Court held.
The Court noted that the writ petitioner had responded to a newspaper appeal issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration seeking information regarding unauthorized constructions and encroachments. He had thereafter lodged a complaint before the concerned authorities seeking implementation of a demolition order passed in 2011.
The Bench observed that the intention behind laws regulating construction and allied activities was to ensure planned and systematic development of the Islands. Unauthorized construction, it said, "destroys the concept of such planned development."
The Court further held that if an authority fails to take note of a citizen's complaint, the complainant can approach the writ court for appropriate directions against the statutory authority.
The observations came in an appeal filed by Dr. R. Thulasidasan against a Single Bench order directing the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council to seal his hotel and implement an earlier demolition order.
While the appellant argued that the construction could be regularized under a policy formulated by the Administration, the Division Bench found that the extent of the violations was far beyond the permissible parameters.
The sanctioned plan permitted a total floor area of 293.49 sq.m., whereas the construction at the site measured 1,156.50 sq.m., resulting in a violation of 863.01 sq.m. The authorities also pointed to unauthorized additional floors, illegal commercial conversion and encroachment upon public land.
The Bench held that regularization was not a matter of right and that courts could not undertake "judicial regularization" of buildings erected without requisite permissions.
The Court ultimately directed implementation of the demolition order after taking into consideration the modified or proposed regularization scheme, to the extent applicable to the construction, and extended the time for demolition by eight weeks.
Case: Dr. R. Thulasidasan vs. Shri M. Sethu & Ors.
Case No: MAT 82 OF 2026