+
Third Parties Can Move Court Against Unauthorised Construction
ECONOMY & POLICY

Third Parties Can Move Court Against Unauthorised Construction

The Calcutta High Court (High Court) Circuit Bench at Port Blair held that a third party or public?spirited citizen can approach the writ court when municipal authorities fail to act against unauthorised construction, noting the burden on civic amenities and safety hazards. The Division Bench (Bench) of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee upheld demolition directions for unauthorised portions of a hotel in Sri Vijaya Puram, subject to the regularisation scheme. The Bench rejected the appellant's locus contention.

The Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision in Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation to say that a public?spirited citizen may bring unauthorised construction to regulatory authorities and that a writ petition is maintainable. It noted that the petitioner had responded to a newspaper appeal by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and lodged a complaint seeking implementation of a demolition order passed in 2011. The judges said laws regulating construction aim for planned development of the Islands.

The Bench observed that rampant unauthorised construction places a strain on civic amenities and creates safety risks, inconveniences and hardships that deny dignified living. It held that where the public at large are likely to be affected and the competent authority remains complacent or fails to ensure demolition, the writ court can be approached for appropriate directions. The court found regularisation is not a matter of right and courts cannot judicially regularise buildings erected without permission.

In the appeal by Dr R. Thulasidasan against a Single Bench order directing the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council to seal his hotel and implement an earlier demolition order, the Bench found violations beyond permissible parameters. The sanctioned plan permitted a total floor area of 293.49 sq.m., whereas the construction measured 1,156.50 sq.m., resulting in a violation of 863.01 sq.m., with unauthorised additional floors, illegal commercial conversion and encroachment on public land. The court directed implementation of the demolition order after considering the modified or proposed regularisation scheme and extended the time for demolition by eight weeks.

The Calcutta High Court (High Court) Circuit Bench at Port Blair held that a third party or public?spirited citizen can approach the writ court when municipal authorities fail to act against unauthorised construction, noting the burden on civic amenities and safety hazards. The Division Bench (Bench) of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee upheld demolition directions for unauthorised portions of a hotel in Sri Vijaya Puram, subject to the regularisation scheme. The Bench rejected the appellant's locus contention. The Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision in Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation to say that a public?spirited citizen may bring unauthorised construction to regulatory authorities and that a writ petition is maintainable. It noted that the petitioner had responded to a newspaper appeal by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and lodged a complaint seeking implementation of a demolition order passed in 2011. The judges said laws regulating construction aim for planned development of the Islands. The Bench observed that rampant unauthorised construction places a strain on civic amenities and creates safety risks, inconveniences and hardships that deny dignified living. It held that where the public at large are likely to be affected and the competent authority remains complacent or fails to ensure demolition, the writ court can be approached for appropriate directions. The court found regularisation is not a matter of right and courts cannot judicially regularise buildings erected without permission. In the appeal by Dr R. Thulasidasan against a Single Bench order directing the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council to seal his hotel and implement an earlier demolition order, the Bench found violations beyond permissible parameters. The sanctioned plan permitted a total floor area of 293.49 sq.m., whereas the construction measured 1,156.50 sq.m., resulting in a violation of 863.01 sq.m., with unauthorised additional floors, illegal commercial conversion and encroachment on public land. The court directed implementation of the demolition order after considering the modified or proposed regularisation scheme and extended the time for demolition by eight weeks.

Related Stories

Gold Stories

Next Story
Real Estate

Elevate Homes to Develop Premium Project in Gurugram

Elevate Homes, the integrated residential development platform established by Hines and Conscient Infrastructure, will develop a premium residential project in Sector 63A, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram. Spread across 10.5 acres with around two million sq. ft. of saleable area, the project is planned for launch later in 2026.Designed by global architecture firm Benoy, the development will feature globally inspired architecture, nature-led design and curated wellness-focused spaces. The project will offer more than 600 three- and four-bedroom residences, with a focus on liveability, susta..

Next Story
Real Estate

BPTP Skynest Wins Premium High-Rise Development Award

BPTP Limited has been recognised with the ‘Premium High-Rise Development of the Year’ award for its residential project BPTP Skynest at the Times Realty & Infrastructure Conclave 2026, held at Grand Hyatt, Gurugram.Located in Sector 80, Greater Faridabad, BPTP Skynest is designed as a premium high-rise residential development featuring contemporary architecture, thoughtfully planned homes and lifestyle-oriented amenities. The project comprises 504 residential units and incorporates biophilic design elements through 20 dedicated Sky Nests, landscaped green spaces integrated within the t..

Next Story
Real Estate

Dubai Buyers Seek Independent Property Transfer Services

Dubai’s property market is witnessing growing discussions around the role of independent transfer services, as some leading brokerages require buyers to pay conveyancing or sales-progression fees even when the service is managed within the same business group holding the seller’s mandate.The practice has gained attention as brokerage websites promote such services, while LinkedIn and Instagram profiles highlight dedicated sales-progression teams operating within agencies. Industry observers point out that the concern is not about the capability of in-house conveyancers but whether buyers s..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

SPECIAL OFFER
QR Code