Unauthorized constructions lacking required approvals must be demolished; passage of time cannot legitimize them.

Respondent No. 5 complained to the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) that unauthorized construction had been undertaken on a plot at Sahar Ulubari Part-I without an NOC or building permit.

The petitioner stated that his family had occupied two old Assam-type houses on part of the plot since 1980 and had paid property taxes since their assessment in 1996.

Following notice, a reply and site inspection, the GMC Commissioner made an order under Section 337(3) of the GMC Act, 1971, on 18 March 2026, finding the constructions unauthorized and directing removal of the setback deviation and demolition.

The Mayor-in-Council dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, while granting liberty to the GMC to conclude the proceeding in accordance with law.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner obtained a planning permit and GMC NOC for a proposed RCC G+1 residential building on the plot.

Whether the Court should interfere with the GMC’s order directing demolition of the houses as unauthorized constructions, and the appellate order upholding the proceeding.

Whether the petitioner should be allowed time to demolish the houses before the GMC carries out the demolition.

Section 337(3) of the GMC Act, 1971, was the basis of the Commissioner’s order concerning the unauthorized constructions; Section 438 of the Act provided for the petitioner’s appeal.

The Court relied on Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 INSC 990, for the principle that illegal construction cannot be legitimized or protected by passage of time, official inaction, or expenditure on the construction, and must be demolished.

It also relied on Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabuddin, 2025 INSC 610, which calls for a strict judicial approach to illegal construction and cautions against judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions.

The Court treated the unauthorized status of the houses as admitted: they had been constructed without an NOC, and the petitioner had not shown that the later planning permit and NOC for a proposed RCC building authorized the existing houses.

Applying the cited Supreme Court principles, it held that the existing unauthorized constructions could not be protected and found no basis to interfere with either the Commissioner’s demolition order or the appellate order.

However, because the petitioner’s family was living in the houses, the Court allowed a three-month period for the petitioner to demolish them before the GMC acted.

The petitioner was granted three months from the judgment to demolish the unauthorized constructions. If demolition was not completed within that period, the GMC was directed to demolish them and recover the expenditure from the petitioner as arrears of municipal taxes.