Can't Protect Unauthorised Construction Saying It's Compoundable Violation : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Demolition

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to accept a plea challenging demolition of an unauthorized construction on the ground that the violation was compoundable in nature.

"Look at the license you'll be giving everyone in this country to say that I will commit an illegal action, it is compoundable...they will drag the authority for 30 years in courts saying that it's compoundable. God knows what will happen! People are crazy, they will construct and occupy roads also!" remarked CJI Surya Kant.

A vacation bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the case, after hearing Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for petitioner). The senior counsel argued inter-alia that the plaintiff (respondent No.1) raised a prayer against 4 constructions, but the Cantonment Planner found only 1 of those to be unauthorized. He further stressed that the unauthorized construction was compoundable in nature.

The CJI asked Parmeswar to show that the additional room (stated to be unauthorizedly constructed) was constructed after getting due approval. Qua this, the senior counsel replied, "it's compoundable".

The CJI then retorted, "first you raise unauthorized construction, they you say it's compoundable! Why the Court should help a person who is hoodwinking the law? We must deal with these kind of elements very strongly... they should demolish and recover the cost of demolition from you. And they should impose some penalty also, if you ask us. That is the discipline we must [encourage] in society".

Briefly put, respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioner (defendant) assailing construction of a room and extension of roof by him near the former's dwelling unit. As respondent No.1 and his wife were living abroad, the petitioner statedly took advantage of their absence and carried out constructions without permission from the Cantonment Board, which encroached upon open space infront of the respondent's dwelling unit.

The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In appeal, the Telangana High Court noted that the constructions were raised without obtaining requisite permission.

"it clearly established that there are construction made by the defendant No.1 in the suit schedule property and admittedly no such permission for such construction was taken by the defendant No. 1 for making such construction from the Cantonment Board i.e. Defendant No.3 and per se, the said construction was said to be illegal and unauthorized", it noted.

Ultimately, the High Court partly held in favor of respondent No.1 and ordered that the illegal construction be removed within 1 month.

Case Title: AMITESH JEET SINGH Versus TGK MAHADEV AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 38224/2025