#Urban Development

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that under Section 89(3) of the APMR & UDA Act, the power to issue provisional orders for unauthorized constructions rests exclusively with the Metropolitan Commissioner or Vice-Chairperson. Orders issued by subordinate authorities are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory delegation in urban development enforcement.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) must consider third-party objections before granting final layout permission, reinforcing compliance with natural justice and statutory provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016. The ruling sets a precedent for due process in urban development approvals, impacting developers, local authorities, and affected stakeholders.

Karnataka High Court rules that a 48-hour demolition notice under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is unreasonable when an appellate remedy under Section 443-A exists. The Court directed a 7-day compliance period, emphasizing that administrative actions must align with principles of natural justice to avoid arbitrariness.

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.

The Supreme Court ruled that an approved Master Plan under the Delhi Development Act overrides deemed forest status claims under the Forest (Conservation) Act, even if tree growth occurred post-acquisition. This binding precedent clarifies that statutory urban development plans take precedence over subsequent environmental classifications, impacting railway land development and urban planning authorities.

Telangana High Court quashes HMDA's Draft Variation Notification dated 07.01.2026 for violating procedural timelines under Section 19 of the HMDA Act, 2008. The ruling underscores that administrative bodies cannot bypass statutory compliance, even for public infrastructure projects, reinforcing the primacy of procedural fairness in land use regulations.

Bombay High Court holds that municipal authorities cannot demolish structures without investigating developer's role or protecting innocent buyers who relied on official approvals.

Bombay High Court holds that unauthorized constructions cannot be protected by delay, administrative inaction, or investment costs. Strict compliance with building regulations is non-negotiable.

Bombay High Court directs halt to issuance of completion and occupation certificates until regulatory compliance is verified, reinforcing procedural safeguards in urban development.