“First You Build Illegally, Then Claim It’s Compoundable” — Supreme Court on Unauthorised Construction
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging the demolition of an unauthorised construction, rejecting the contention that the violation was compoundable in nature.
A vacation Bench comprising Surya Kant, Chief Justice of India, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the special leave petition after hearing Senior Advocate K. Parmeswar for the petitioner.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed strong disapproval of the argument that an admittedly illegal construction could be protected merely because it was compoundable. Warning of the wider consequences of such an approach, the CJI remarked:
“Look at the licence you will be giving to everyone in this country to say that I will commit an illegal act and then claim it is compoundable. They will drag authorities to courts for 30 years. God knows what will happen. People are crazy—they will construct and occupy roads also.”
The senior counsel contended that although the plaintiff (respondent No.1) had challenged four constructions, the Cantonment Planner had found only one to be unauthorised. It was further argued that even the said construction i e., an additional room, was compoundable under the relevant regulations.
The Bench, however, was not persuaded. The Chief Justice specifically asked the petitioner to demonstrate that the additional room had been constructed after obtaining due approval from the competent authority. In response, the senior counsel reiterated that the violation was compoundable. By rejecting this submission, the CJI observed:
“First you raise an unauthorised construction, then you say it is compoundable. Why should the Court help a person who is hoodwinking the law? These kinds of elements must be dealt with very strongly. The authorities should demolish the structure, recover the cost of demolition, and impose penalties. That is the discipline we must encourage in society.”
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner, alleging unauthorised construction of a room and extension of a roof adjacent to the respondent’s dwelling unit. As the respondent and his wife were residing abroad, it was alleged that the petitioner took advantage of their absence and carried out construction without permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, encroaching upon the open space in front of the respondent’s property.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, in appeal, the Telangana High Court took note of the petitioner’s admission that the constructions were raised without obtaining prior permission from the Cantonment Board. The High Court also noted that the society bye-laws prohibited any alteration without approval and that the petitioner had earlier given an affidavit undertaking not to carry out construction in the open area.
The High Court rejected the defence that the dispute was merely inter se between society members and held that the unauthorised constructions involve violations of statutory regulations and affect public authorities as well. It observed that: “No person is entitled to make construction without permission of the competent sanctioning authority,” and concluded that the constructions were per se illegal and unauthorised.
Accordingly, while partly allowing the appeal, the High Court directed the petitioner to remove the illegal construction within one month, granting liberty to the Cantonment Board to initiate action in accordance with law in case of non-compliance.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the special leave petition by refusing to interfere with the demolition order.
Case Details
Case Title: Amitesh Jeet Singh v. TGK Mahadev and Others
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 38224 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 22 December, 2025