Pending litigation cannot shield illegal land use from sealing: Supreme Court

Reports coming in for today mention that Pending litigation over ownership or other disputes cannot be used as a shield against action by authorities when a property is being used in violation of its sanctioned land-use purpose, the Supreme Court stated in an order.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan, while dealing with a wide-ranging matter concerning unauthorised construction and land use, directed authorities to prioritise preventing commercial activity in areas specifically earmarked for residential use.

“With regard to any building or land in respect of which a lis (legal case) may be pending … the pendency of such lis shall not come in the way of the Authorities sealing the premises if the use thereof is in violation of the purpose for which the land/building was allotted,” the Supreme Court stated in its order dated September 22.

The court ordered that if commercial activity is found in an area where the state has permitted only residential use, the premises should be sealed.

The order came in proceedings in which the court is monitoring compliance by authorities in several states and cities. The bench directed the authorities to file updated status notes before the next hearing on November 23, while the amicus curiae has additionally been asked to submit a consolidated report.

The apex court additionally made it clear that where a structure has come up wholly unauthorised and without approval from any authority, the process of sealing or demolition, as required under law, can proceed.

At the same time, the court drew a distinction for areas where land use is not clearly specified as commercial or residential. In such cases, where the question of mixed use may arise, the existing status quo should, for the time being, not be disturbed, although proceedings on paper can continue.

The directions assume significance amid continuing disputes over unauthorised commercial use, construction and enforcement of master plans in different cities.

The Supreme Court additionally cautioned authorities against selective enforcement. It directed all authorities to carry out the exercise without discrimination and warned that any “pick-and-choose” approach would invite a strict view from the court.