Topic
Unauthorised construction in India refers to buildings erected without statutory approvals from municipal or urban development authorities, violating zoning, environmental, or building regulations.
Bombay High Court rules that unauthorised constructions lack legal validity even with municipal assessment records or private agreements. The Court underscores that subsequent permissions cannot regularise illegal structures, reinforcing strict compliance with sanctioned plans for property legality.
Gauhati High Court reinforces the exhaustion doctrine by dismissing a writ petition challenging a demolition order for unauthorised construction, directing petitioners to first pursue the statutory appeal under the GMDA Act. The ruling underscores that Article 226 cannot be invoked bypassing available statutory remedies, impacting property owners and developers in urban development disputes.
Bombay High Court rules that replacing a roof with a different material (e.g., Ladi Coba slab instead of A.C. sheets) constitutes an 'alteration' under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, mandating prior permission. The Court dismissed reliance on a 1987 circular, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory provisions for property modifications.
Bombay High Court rules that fraudulently obtained building permissions are null and void, barring regularisation even for high-value projects. The judgment reinforces that unauthorised constructions-regardless of investment or completion-must be demolished to prevent environmental and urban planning violations, aligning with Supreme Court precedent on zero tolerance for illegal developments.
Bombay High Court rules that MHADA's demolition orders under Section 55 of the MR&TP Act become final if unchallenged within the prescribed timeline, barring subsequent legal recourse. The court rejected pleas for fresh hearings, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory timelines for property disputes involving government authorities.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that municipal corporations cannot erect permanent structures obstructing a private property’s access to the main road, even on former waste disposal land, without statutory backing or compensation. This affirms that property frontage rights are constitutionally protected and cannot be encroached upon under the guise of public utility.
Bombay High Court holds that payment of property tax, electricity bills, or long possession does not regularise unauthorised structures on public streets under BMC Act Section 314.
Madhya Pradesh High Court directs prompt demolition of unauthorised constructions within 200 metres of Shipra River, reinforcing environmental protection under Master Plan 2025.