Designated Authority Can't Revoke Order Regularising Unauthorised Construction Absent Express Statutory Power: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has observed that under the State Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, the Designated Authority after granting regularisation to a construction, cannot suo-motu revoke such regularisation in absence of any express provision. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 178]

The court was hearing a plea challenging a 2018 order passed under the Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act cancelling regularisation of unauthorised construction. 

The Respondent No.5 had submitted an application to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking regularisation of the unauthorised construction which comprised of construction admeasuring 83.16 square metres on the ground floor of Swastik Complex, as well as an unauthorised development admeasuring 24.95 square metres in an area originally earmarked for parking. In 2015 the AMC regulrised the construction. The petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 thereafter purchased the property from respondent No.5.

Several complaints concerning the unauthorised development carried out on the top floor as well as on the ground floor of Swastik Complex were submitted to the municipal authorities. However, instead of initiating appropriate action against the alleged unauthorised development, the competent authority revoked the regularisation. 

Justice Niral R Mehta referred to the provisions of the Act and said that before passing the regularisation order the Designated Authority must have undertaken the inquiry contemplated under Section 6(1) and, in the course of such inquiry, must have duly considered the restrictions and prohibitions contained in Section 8.

"The order under Section 6(3) having been passed upon such scrutiny, the subsequent invocation of Section 8(4) by the Designated Authority for cancelling or revoking the very order of regularisation is, in the considered opinion of this Court, wholly misconceived and dehors the powers conferred under the Act. The reason is not far to seek. As discussed hereinabove, Section 8 does not vest any independent or substantive power in the Designated Authority. It merely prescribes the classes of unauthorised developments that are ineligible for regularisation and sets out the statutory parameters to be borne in mind while exercising jurisdiction under Section 6. The embargo contained in Section 8 is therefore required to be considered at the stage of inquiry under Section 6(1), before the Designated Authority arrives at a decision either granting regularisation under Section 6(3) or rejecting the application under Section 6(4).

Once an order granting regularisation has been passed under Section 6(3), the Designated Authority cannot, in the absence of any express statutory provision, suo motu revoke or cancel the same by resorting to Section 8(4). Such an exercise would amount to assuming a power of review or recall which the legislature has consciously not conferred upon the authority".

The court said that the action of the respondents in revoking the order passed under Section 6(3) is, therefore, a clear instance of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in them by law.

It said that acceptance of such an interpretation would effectively amount to conferring upon the Designated Authority a power which finds no sanction in the statutory framework. 

"A perusal of the impugned order further indicates that the Designated Authority has, on the basis of certain material or evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the construction in question was carried out beyond the prescribed cut-off date. This Court is unable to discern the source of power under the Act which authorises the Designated Authority, after passing an order under Section 6(3), either to collect fresh evidence or to reassess and review the material that had already been considered while granting regularisation," the court added. 

Allowing the plea, the court quashed the revocation order. 

Case title: UNNATI JASMIN SHAH & ORS. v/s  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5539 of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 178