Courts cannot judicially regularize unauthorized construction beyond the applicable statutory scheme; demolition must follow.

The appellant, Dr. R. Thulasidasan, constructed a building at Sri Vijaya Puram pursuant to a sanctioned plan permitting a substantially smaller residential structure.

The Municipal Council alleged deviations in plot coverage, setback, FAR and height, including construction of additional floors and conversion of portions of the building for commercial use as a hotel.

The sanctioned floor area was stated to be 293.49 sq. m., whereas the construction at site measured approximately 1,156.50 sq. m., resulting in an alleged violation of 863.01 sq. m.

The Municipal Council issued a stop-work notice and provisional demolition order in December 2010, followed by a final demolition order dated 24 February 2011.

Respondent No. 1 approached the writ court seeking implementation of the demolition order.

The learned Single Judge directed the Municipal Council to seal the hotel and implement the demolition order if the construction had not been regularized, and granted liberty to the authorities to enter and reclaim encroached portions of land.

Whether Respondent No. 1, as a third party and public-spirited citizen, had locus standi to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution seeking implementation of the demolition order against an unauthorized construction.

Whether the appellant’s unauthorized construction was capable of regularization under the Administration’s proposed regularization policy or the modified Master Plan.

Whether the writ court could direct reconsideration or judicial regularization of the construction despite the authorities’ finding that the violations were major and outside the regularization scheme.

Whether the demolition order and directions concerning reclamation of encroached public land were liable to be interfered with.

The Court applied the principle that a public-spirited citizen may approach the writ court to seek enforcement of municipal and planning laws where unauthorized construction affects the public at large; the objection of locus is not material in such cases, as recognized in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, (2013) 5 SCC 336.

It relied on the rule that construction contrary to a sanctioned plan cannot ordinarily be regularized as a matter of right and that courts must not confer equitable protection or undertake “judicial regularization” of illegal structures.

The Court further relied on Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, (2021) 10 SCC 1; Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733; Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2010) 2 SCC 27; Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357; and Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 INSC 610, for the principles that unauthorized construction burdens civic infrastructure, jeopardizes public safety and planned development, and must be dealt with strictly.

The Court also applied the principle of negative equality under Article 14: the existence of other unauthorized constructions that had not been demolished could not justify protection of the appellant’s illegal construction.

The Court found that a pre-existing demolition order had been passed in 2011 and that the appellant did not dispute the measurements demonstrating substantial deviations from the sanctioned plan.

The alleged violations were not minor deviations but involved unauthorized additional floors, significant excess construction, changes in use and alleged encroachment, all of which the Municipal Council and Administration stated were beyond the permissible parameters of the modified Master Plan or proposed regularization scheme.

Applying the principle that regularization is not a vested right, the Court held that it could not direct the authorities to regularize construction which the competent authorities had found incapable of being regularized.

The Court rejected the appellant’s locus objection because unauthorized construction affects planned development, civic amenities, public safety and the interests of citizens generally.

The Court also rejected the plea of discriminatory treatment based on the existence of similar unauthorized buildings, holding that Article 14 does not operate negatively to perpetuate illegality.

Nevertheless, because the Single Judge’s direction was expressly subject to any applicable regularization scheme, the appellate court directed that implementation of the demolition order should take into account the modified or proposed scheme to the extent legally applicable, without reopening the matter for an impermissible judicial grant of regularization.

The Court upheld implementation of the 24 February 2011 demolition order, subject to consideration of the modified or proposed regularization scheme only to the extent that it was legally applicable to the appellant’s construction.

The time for demolition was extended by eight weeks from communication of the judgment.

In relation to alleged encroachment of revenue land, the Court held that the Administration could proceed in accordance with law.

The directions regarding sealing of the hotel and consequential statutory action therefore remained operative subject to the limited qualification concerning lawful applicability of the regularization scheme.