Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order To Remove Unauthorised Constructions In Gurugram; Remands For Fresh Decision After Hearing Owners

The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which directed the removal of unauthorized and illegal constructions in Gurugram's DLF City, noting that such a sweeping direction without affording an opportunity of hearing to the owners who were not impleaded in the suits can't be issued. Instead, the Court restored the Writ Petition before the High Court with a direction to all the affected owners to seek impledment in the proceedings within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, i.e, up to November 11. The Court said that the State authorities are at liberty to give wide publicity to this order for impleading the affected persons in the PIL. A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the appeal filed against the High Court's order passed in February in a PIL giving sweeping directions for the removal of the illegal and commercial use of residential premises in Gurugram. The High Court directed the authorities to take action within two months under Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (HDRUA Act). Aggrieved property owners approached the Supreme Court, arguing that several of them had already obtained decrees in their favour, while others had pending civil suits concerning their properties. They claimed that the High Court's directions, issued without hearing them, jeopardized their right to a fair trial and prejudiced ongoing proceedings. Noting that the unauthorized and illegal constructions cannot be protected at any cost, the Court however, criticized the High Court for passing directions affecting private rights without impleading the concerned parties. “we are constrained to observe that unauthorized or illegal construction commercial use of residential property contrary to the norms, rules and regulations cannot be protected. But the determination of such fact ought to be made by the authorities affording due opportunity to the owners and occupiers. In the present case, the direction, as issued by the High Court, either with respect to the jurisdiction of the civil court or for removal of the constructions appears to be without joining the appellants as party in the writ petition. It goes without saying that opportunity of hearing is a sine qua non for fair administration of justice and the observations of the Court should not adjudicate the rights of any parties unheard.”, the court observed. Disposing of the appeal, the Court provided an opportunity to all the affected owners to approach the High Court, and only after affording them an opportunity of hearing, appropriate orders would be passed by the High Court. Also, the PILs which were restored shall be decided at the earliest, as far as possible, after affording opportunity to all concerned within a period of six months, the court directed the High Court. Cause Title: GAURAV KOHLI & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1061Click here to read/download the orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Kaadambari Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kopal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aslam Ahmed Jamal, AOR Mr. T.r.yadav, Adv. Ms. Kheyali Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Smriti Shukla, Adv. Ms. Shruti Narayan, Adv. Mr. Satyapal Singh, Adv. Mr. R Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Arunachal, Adv. Mr. Mohd Afeef, Adv. Mr. Kafeel Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Atmaram N.s. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Tomar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Karan Lohia, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Neelmani Pant, AOR Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR Mr. Durgesh Ramchandra Gupta, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Arvind Verma, Sr. Adv. Ms. Smridhi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mahima Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Sneha Masani, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv. Ms. Aashna Gill, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. 10 Ms. Karishma Malani, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv. Ms. Kirti, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Ms. Shagun Shahi Chugh, Adv. Ms. Meera Chugh, Adv. Mr. Katahiamang Panmei, Adv. Mr. Atul Dong, Adv. Mr. Kabir Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, AOR Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Adv. Ms. Uzma Sheikh, Adv. Mr. Jappanpreet Hora, Adv. Ms. Kanika Gomber, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Adv. Mr. Rohan Khanna, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Arvind Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanchar Anand, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR Mr. Rajat Rathee, Adv. Mr. Aman Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order To Remove Unauthorised Constructions In Gurugram; Remands For Fresh Decision After Hearing Owners

Yash Mittal

The Court asked the aggrieved property owners to approach the High Court seeking impleadment within two weeks.

Tags