While expressing concerns about the conduct of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the matter of unauthorized constructions and illegal land use, the Supreme Court today ordered a survey of the capital's Malviya Nagar and Saket areas.

Further, the Court further took note of a news report stating that about 93% of establishments in the national capital region's Gurugram are lacking in fire safety measures and called for the personal presence of the Gurugram Development Authority Vice Chairman.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order, indicating that 2 senior professors from IIT, Delhi should be part of the team the abovementioned areas. The team, also comprising officials of MCD and representative of the Amicus, shall file a report, which shall not exhibit any kind of "slackness".

Notably, insofar as it was alleged that the authorities are only taking action against builders and owners of properties in violation, but not against any official, the Court ordered that the authorities shall file affidavits by the next date specifically giving details about steps taken against officials in-charge of areas where violations have occurred.

The matter arises out of a case concerning the unauthorized use of a residential colony for a commercial purpose in Chennai. In March, the Court had expanded its scope to examine the issues on a pan-India basis. To this effect, it had ordered impleadment of municipal authorities of all State and Union Territory capital cities, calling on them to file detailed affidavits.

The said authorities were directed to "conduct a comprehensive inquiry within their respective jurisdictions to identify areas that are demarcated exclusively for residential use, but are being misused for non-residential purposes by the persons concerned."

In May, the Court was informed by Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha (Amicus Curiae) that only 3 states filed their affidavits, that too without stipulating exactly what steps were taken against the violations noted by the authorities. He claimed that the problem was enormous. With regard to Delhi, he stated that violations in areas like Sarojini Nagar and Lajpat Nagar presented threat of a calamity.

Given the blatant violation of building bye-laws and multi-storey constructions far in excess of sanction plans, he urged that a calamity was waiting to happen. Against this, MCD took a stand that under the Master Plan of Delhi, multiple usages were permitted.

The Court however did not find merit in the submission and held that once sanction for a building plan has been obtained by someone indicating a particular land use, subsequent change of user is impermissible and a "fraud" on the system. It commented that ignorance of this aspect could be indicative of "tacit collusion and connivance with violators" for extraneous considerations.

In this backdrop, the Court issued fresh directions for the respondent-authorities to indicate actual steps taken pursuant to their surveys. Also, the statutory appellate authorities and quasi judicial forums dealing with matters related to unauthorized constructions, change of land use, violations of buildings norms etc. were called on to dispose of such cases within 3 months.

During today's hearing, Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, for MCD, informed the Court that certain steps have been taken which would be brought on record in detail before the next date. He further submitted that in light of some recent incidents (as highlighted to the court during the hearing), some immediate steps would also be taken. This, the Court noted, shall not only be reflective to the bonafides of the Corporation, but also indicate that the rule of law is being strictly implemented in the larger public interest.

"We are particularly bothered with regard to the conduct of the MCD...", the Court said.

With regard to property violations in Gurugram and Lucknow, it recorded in the order,

"Day before yesterday, it has been reported in a daily newspaper (Hindustan Times) that 93% of the establishments in Gurugram are failing fire safety measures. We are constrained to direct Gurugram Development Authority Vice Chairman [to remain present] alongwith a report as to what effective and actual steps have been taken on the ground. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Lucknow similarly is required to be physically present on the next date, with a full and detailed report with regard to the actions taken on the ground."

Case Title: LOGANATHAN v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS., Diary No. - 17103/2026