Unauthorized Constructions Can't Be Shielded, Yet Action Must Follow Fair Hearing: SC

The Supreme Court has said unauthorized or illegal construction or commercial use of residential property contrary to the norms, rules and regulations cannot be protected, but the determination of such fact ought to be made by the authorities by affording due opportunity to the owners and occupiers.   

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's directions issued in a PIL related to unauthorized constructions made in Gurugram without giving any hearing to the affected parties or considering that over 172 civil suits were pending in respect of the dispute.

"In the present case, the direction, as issued by the High Court, either with respect to the jurisdiction of the civil court or for removal of the constructions appears to be without joining the appellants as party in the writ petition. It goes without saying that opportunity of hearing is a sine qua non for fair administration of justice and the observations of the court should not adjudicate the rights of any parties unheard,'' the bench said.  

Court passed the verdict in multiple appeals filed by Gurugram residents challenging the High Court’s directions in two public interest litigations concerning large-scale urban planning violations. The High Court had examined reports submitted by the Haryana government, detailing non-compoundable irregularities such as construction beyond permissible limits, additional floors, and commercial use in residential zones. It had directed authorities to take action within two months and ordered that all related civil suits be “forthwith closed” after giving parties an opportunity of hearing, relying on a jurisdictional bar under Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

The appellants, Gaurav Kohli and others, told the Supreme Court that they had neither been made parties to the PILs nor given an opportunity to present their case. They argued that 172 civil suits filed by various owners were pending before civil courts, while some had already been decreed in their favour. The High Court’s sweeping directions, they said, had the effect of prejudging their rights. They also expressed concern that the High Court’s observations on the civil courts’ jurisdiction could influence the adjudication of their suits.

The State and the PIL petitioners defended the High Court’s order, reiterating that the area in question had numerous unauthorized constructions and that many residents were using residential properties commercially or constructing without requisite permissions. The State submitted that notices had been issued to individual residents detailing the violations, but instead of responding, many had approached civil courts despite a statutory jurisdictional bar.

The Supreme Court, however, noted that while illegal or unauthorized construction cannot be protected, the determination of such violations can only be made after giving owners and occupiers a fair opportunity to be heard. The bench said the High Court’s directions regarding closure of civil suits and removal of constructions appeared to have been issued without joining the affected persons as parties.

“Opportunity of hearing is a sine qua non for fair administration of justice and the observations of the Court should not adjudicate the rights of any parties unheard,” the bench observed.

Setting aside the High Court’s 13 February 2025 order in its entirety, the Supreme Court restored the PILs to the High Court and directed that the affected residents be allowed to participate in the proceedings.

The appellants have been given two weeks from the date of uploading of the Supreme Court’s order to move applications before the High Court and file their responses. Court further directed that any other person likely to be affected may also apply within the same period, and asked the State to give wide publicity to the order to facilitate their participation.

If the appellants or other affected persons fail to approach the High Court within two weeks, court said, the High Court may proceed in accordance with law. The restored PILs must be decided within six months after giving all parties an opportunity of hearing.

With these directions, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals.

A battery of senior lawyers appeared for the appellants, including Kaadambari Singh, Raju Ramachandran, Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Arvind Verma, and Shikhil Suri, along with multiple supporting advocates-on-record and briefing counsel. The State was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Senior AAG Lokesh Sinhal and a larger team of government lawyers, while several other counsel for the PIL petitioners and respondents, including Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra, were also present during the hearing.

Case Title: Gaurav Kohli and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others

Order Date: October 28, 2025

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi