According to the plea, demolitions are at times carried out in a hurried, erratic and unsystematic manner.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked all states and Union territories to consider a representation seeking a uniform policy for the regularisation and demolition of long-standing unauthorised constructions across the country.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana declined to entertain a PIL filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance that sought directions to the Centre and states for framing such a policy to protect unauthorised dwelling units of the poor.
The court held that the issue largely falls within the policy domain of state governments and local authorities.
“It would be difficult and may not be prudent for this court to lay down a uniform policy framework to be applied across various states,” the bench observed, noting that circumstances and ground realities vary from state to state.
The court, however, expressed hope that states and Union territories would give due consideration to the issues raised in the petition while formulating new policies or revisiting existing frameworks.
“We are hopeful that due consideration shall be given to all such issues by the competent authorities,” it said.
The PIL highlighted settlement and regularisation schemes already in place in states such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as well as in Delhi. It alleged that in several instances, unauthorised colonies and structures were demolished suddenly, sometimes without adequate notice and without any rehabilitation or welfare mechanism for affected families.The petition described demolition as an extreme and irreversible measure that cannot be undertaken without a policy balancing enforcement of planning and land-use laws with the constitutional rights to shelter, livelihood and dignity under Article 21.
It pointed to inconsistent approaches by state governments, including instances where authorities assured residents of regularisation, collected municipal and property taxes and provided civic amenities, only to later declare the structures illegal after decades and order demolition without assessing alternative accommodation.Counsel for the petitioner urged the court to examine the issue from a human-rights perspective, particularly for families in long-term possession.
Chief Justice Kant noted that the Supreme Court had already laid down comprehensive safeguards against illegal and unauthorised demolitions.
Referring to the court’s humanist jurisprudence beginning with Olga Tellis, he recalled that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process and that even a rank unauthorised occupant must ordinarily be given at least 15 days’ notice before demolition.
Justice Bagchi observed that the issues would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and could not necessarily be resolved through a single court-framed policy. He said the prayers in the petition were framed too broadly and risked the court entering the executive’s policy domain.
The bench also noted that unauthorised construction does not always involve economically vulnerable residents; some structures are raised for commercial or profit-making purposes.
At the same time, it acknowledged situations where large numbers of economically marginalised people occupy land and require alternative accommodation — decisions that call for policy choices by the state.The court reiterated that a court-appointed committee could not substitute the powers vested in state governments and municipalities to enforce the law.
Leave a Reply