Supreme Court expresses anguish against violation of regulatory laws by property developers

Supreme Court expresses anguish against violation ofregulatory laws by property developers

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on State governments and politicians for giving support to builders for construction of illegal andunautho- rized structures and later extending protection from demolition in thename of compassion and hardship. 

It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that despiterepeated judgments by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in construction activities, who have over the years have shown scant respect for the regulatory mechanism envisaged in municipal and similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans, etc, have received encouragement and support from the state apparatus. 

Whenever orders are passed by courts, those in power have come forward to protect the wrong doer either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws , for regularization of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the name of compassion and hardship.

Expressing its anguish, the Bench observed that the economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the state have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls, etc, in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans, and even sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorized constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn a blind eye either due to the influence of higher authorities of the state or for other extraneous reasons.

The Hon'ble court further held that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief given to the violator on grounds that they have spent a substantial amount on construction of the buildings.

The Hon'ble court while permitting the authorities todemolish the unauthorized Shanti Sports Club of India at Masudpur in Delhi, observed that it is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State took a serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others,else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaoticconditions.

The Bench dismissed the petition filed by the club challenging the decision by the authorities to demolish the premises, as it was constructed on land acquired by the government in 1965. The Hon'ble courtobserved that in the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, hasseen unplanned growth. 

In the 21 st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorizedconstructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying a heavy price for the same.

Supreme courtdecisions

Lease of Immovable property In SATISH KUMAR V. ZARlF AHMED & ORS [1997] INSC 192 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, inter alia, observed as under: The question that arises is : whether a lease of immoveableproperty from month to month or for 11 months is a compulsorily registerabledocument, though it was reduced to writing as an instrument defined under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act? A conjoint read ing of the first part of section 107 read with Section 17(1) (d) of the Registration Act, does indicate that a lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent should be made only by a registered instrument and all other instruments, though reduced to writing and possession is deliv- ered thereunder, are not compulsorily registerable instru- ments.

 

Registration of SaleDeed 

In DHARMA NAIKA v. RAMA NAIKA&ANR [2008] INSC 133 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia observed : The only question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the sale deed, which was executed and registered after the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Act for short] which came into force with effect from 1 st of January, 1979 in respect of which sale the agreement for sale was executed before the commencement of theAct, would be hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. 

Dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that after the commence- ment of the Act, if any transfer is effected or any person acquires any granted land by transfer, without the previous permission of the Govern- ment, such transfer shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in suchland shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. 

The Hon'ble court further held that so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, admittedly, the transfer was effected after the commencement of the Actby a deed of sale dated 13th of October, 1986 without the previous permission of the Government. That being the position, the Hon'ble court held that such transfer must be held to be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be con- veyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.