Supreme Court's 'Bulldozer Justice' Verdict Not A Shield For Illegal Constructions: Jharkhand HC Refuses To Stay Demolition In Jamshedpur
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to modify its earlier order directing the demolition of illegal constructions in Jamshedpur. The Court held that the Supreme Court's decision In Re: Directions in Matter of Demolition of Structures, does not assist the applicants, as that judgment was rendered in the context of "bulldozer justice" and not in cases involving illegal constructions raised in disregard of the law and town planning norms
A Division Bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing an application seeking modification of the High Court's order dated 14 January 2026, by which the Jharkhand Notified Area Committee (JNAC), Jamshedpur, was directed to demolish illegal structures raised by private respondents within one month.
Background:
The Court noted that, in the earlier order, the JNAC had admitted that the constructions were illegal and had undertaken to demolish them. It also took note of the report of a committee of three advocates, which found that the buildings violated building bye-laws, exceeded sanctioned limits and were constructed in the absence of effective monitoring by the authorities.
The appellants argued that demolitions ought not to have been directed and that the statement of the JNAC to carry out demolitions should not have been treated as an undertaking to the Court, as it would violate the Supreme Court's directions In Re: Directions in Matter of Demolition of Structures.
They submitted that deviations within permissible limits can be regularised and that, without giving them an opportunity to seek regularisation, no demolition could have been ordered.
It was further contended that, if the prescribed procedure were followed, they would have a right to appeal against the demolition orders and demonstrate that their constructions were either not illegal or that the deviations were within permissible or condonable limits.
Accordingly, they sought modification of the order dated 14 January 2026, a stay on demolitions, and a direction to the JNAC to follow the procedure prescribed by law.
The High Court disagreed with these submissions and observed that even in the present applications, the applicants had failed to place any material to show, even prima facie, that their constructions were legal or that the deviations were within permissible or condonable limits.
It noted that submissions were made without any supporting pleadings or credible material, and that none of the applicants had produced a completion certificate, which is a mandatory requirement. It held:
“Unfortunately, it has become common practice to obtain permission and then carry out construction in gross deviation from the conditions imposed by such permission. If the deviations are indeed within the permissible limits, then it is the duty of the person putting up such constructions to apply for a completion certificate by disclosing these deviations and demonstrating how these deviations are within the permissible limits. Only then can a completion certificate be issued by the authorities. The absence of a completion certificate indicates that the deviations in these cases exceed the permissible condonable limits.”
The Court held that the present situation had arisen not only because the applicants and several others had indulged in rampant illegal constructions, but also due to gross dereliction of duty on the part of the JNAC and the municipal authorities, who were duty-bound to prevent such illegal constructions and to take strict action when such violations were found. It held:
“As observed by the coordinate Bench in the order of 14th January, 2026, it is most difficult to accept that such constructions were possible other than with the active connivance of the authorities or, in any event, on account of gross inaction on the part of the authorities in initiating action. It is this attitude which emboldens the applicants like the ones who are before us today, who raise all kinds of pleas in the name of the Rule of law when they have, themselves, shown the most scant regard to the Rule of law when putting up these constructions or when deviating grossly from the permissions under which such constructions were commenced.”
The High Court held that the directions issued in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures were rendered in a context entirely different from the facts of the present case, as those directions were issued in the context of “bulldozer justice” and were not comparable to the gross facts and circumstances involved here. The Court noted:
“The directions in the case of Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, in Re. (Supra) were issued in the context not at all comparable to the gross facts and circumstances of the present case. Here, it is not as if the rule of law has not been complied with. The applicants had a full opportunity to seek completion certificates if they seriously believed that the deviations they undertook were within the condonable limits. The applicants had full opportunity to produce the permissions, licenses or authority under which the constructions were put up. The principles of natural justice cannot be unnaturally expanded.”
The Court held that the law on regularisation of patently illegal constructions is well settled and that regularisation provisions are an exception, and not the rule.
It observed that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that regularisation of illegal constructions cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and that the benefit of regularisation cannot be extended to persons who brazenly and with impunity violate building and environmental regulations.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the interlocutory applications seeking modification of the earlier order and upheld the directions for demolition.
Title: Rakesh Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand.
Case Number: W.P. (PIL) No. 2078 of 2018.
Appearances: Akhilesh Srivastava appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Piyush Chitresh appeared for the State. Mr. Krishna Kumar appeared for JNAC. Senior Advocates Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr. Anil Kumar, assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. J. N. Upadhyay, appeared for the Intervenor/Applicants.