Non-Joinder of Necessary Occupants in Illegal Construction Writ Rendered Petition Non-Maintanable Due to Civil Consequences

The petitioner, an occupant of premises adjoining a new construction scheme, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 6 (the developer) carried out construction in violation of General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) without lawful authorization.

This construction allegedly obstructed natural light and ventilation to the petitioner’s property.

Although the flats had already been sold and transferred to various purchasers, the petitioner chose not to implead the current occupants/owners as parties.

1. Whether a writ petition seeking demolition or alteration of property is maintainable without impleading the current owners/occupants of said property.

2. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to resolve the dispute involving unauthorized construction and easementary rights.

The court applied the procedural doctrine of "Non-joinder of Necessary Parties," which dictates that no order adverse to a person’s civil rights can be passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard.

It further applied the principle of "Alternative Remedy," emphasizing that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when a substantive civil suit is a more appropriate and comprehensive forum for factual adjudication.

The court observed that respondent No. 6 had already alienated the flats to third-party purchasers who were currently residing there.

the court reasoning was that any order for demolition or alteration would directly and substantially impact the civil rights, possession, and interests of these absent owners.

Their absence rendered the proceedings "procedurally deficient".

the court found that the nature of the dispute—involving technical violations of building codes and interference with property rights—was better suited for a Civil Court where all parties could be impleaded and evidence comprehensively evaluated.

The High Court dismissed the petition and discharged the notice. The petitioner was granted liberty to institute a substantive civil suit before a competent Civil Court to pursue the matter in accordance with the law.