Illegal Construction | Once Undertaking Given To Demolish, Offending Party Cannot Expect Authority To Seek Compounding: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that once an undertaking has been given for taking down illegal construction, the offending party cannot expect the Development Authority to approach it for compounding of the map.While dealing with a case regarding illegal and unsanctioned construction in New Katra, Prayagraj, the bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed “The fact that the respondent nos.6 & 7 knew that the construction raised by them is not as per the approved plan and there has been deviation in the construction from the approved plan and knowing this fact that the respondent no.6 gave an undertaking by filing an affidavit that she would demolish the construction which is in deviation from the approved map, she cannot expect the authorities to approach her asking for compounding of the map.”Petitioner, a permanent resident of New Katra area, filed a writ petition against illegal construction being done by respondents No. 6 and 7 over their plot which is next to the petitioners. Petitioner's grievance is that due to the illegal construction and no set back being left, the foundation of his old house was being affected and his right to air and light were also being affected. The Court noted that an order dated 03.05.2025 had been passed by the Prayagraj Development Authority, sealing the premises in question. It observed that thereafter respondent No. 6 submitted an application for de-sealing citing fear of waterlogging in the basement. On affidavit, she had stated that any illegal construction would be demolished by her. Subsequently, the property was de-sealed. The Court observed that there was no power with the Secretary to grant such approval, especially when the illegal construction was beyond compoundable limit. It was observed that the illegal construction continued even after de-sealing. “It is shocking that the authorities do not have empathy for the residents in a locality where such an illegal construction has been raised under the eyes of PDA without appreciating that the construction of basement beyond permissible limit could damage the foundation of the petitioner's house which could result in collapse of the petitioner's house which could further lead to damage to the property as well as loss of human life, and further such an illegal construction would affect the easementary rights of the petitioner with no set back being left, though under approved plan, the respondent nos.6 & 7 should have left the set back and as such would obstruct fresh air and sunlight to the petitioner which are necessary for leading a healthy life.”Noting that re-sealing order was passed by PDA only after cognizance of the case was taken by the Court, the Court expressed its dejection over the conduct of the PDA. The Vice-Chairman of PDA was summoned by the Court who admitted that the illegal construction was beyond the compounding limit. Even though the counsel for private respondents and PDA gave an undertaking regarding demolishing the illegal construction, the Court observed that PDA gave an opportunity to the respondents to get the map compounded, failing which the illegal construction shall be demolished. Subsequently, a demolition order was passed. On pointed query, counsel for respondent submitted that the demolition order will be challenged in separate proceedings. The Court did not appreciate the conduct of the respondents and observed that “The Courts are meant for the fair and law abiding citizens, but not for the unscrupulous persons, who have no faith in law and who violate the law with impunity.”Noting the adamance of the respondents in violating the law, the Court, upon undertaking given by the Counsel, granted one more opportunity to them to get the map compounded and demolish the illegal construction which was beyond compoundable limit. Observing that the officers of PDA were hands in gloves with the respondents, the Court noted that if the compounding and demolition was not carried out by the next day, explanation will be called from both the present and the past Vice Chairman who allowed the de-sealing of the premises. Present Vice Chairman of PDA was directed to remain present before the Court on the next date as well. Case Title: Badal Chatterjee v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others Appearances: Sri Chandan Sharma, counsel for petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, counsel for Prayagraj Development Authority and Sri Rakesh Pande, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dheeraj Singh and Sri Udai Chandani, counsel for respondent nos.6 & 7Click Here To Read/Download Order

Illegal Construction | Once Undertaking Given To Demolish, Offending Party Cannot Expect Authority To Seek Compounding: Allahabad High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags