Court Rejects Regularization Plea, Emphasizing Strict Adherence to Building Bye-Laws and Urban Planning Norms
In a significant ruling delivered on August 28, 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dismissed an appeal challenging the demolition order against unauthorized construction of a hotel by Dr. R. Thulasidasan. The court directed the Sri Vijay Puram Municipal Council to proceed with sealing and demolition of the illegal portions of the Hotel De Marina, reinforcing the primacy of building regulations and urban planning laws in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The dispute arose over the appellant’s hotel building which, according to the Municipal Council, had exceeded sanctioned parameters in terms of setback, plot coverage, floor area ratio (FAR), and building height, involving large-scale violations that were non-compoundable under the Building Bye-Laws of 1999. Despite claims by the appellant’s counsel that the land had been converted to commercial use and that a government notification envisaged regularization of certain unauthorized constructions up to the third floor, the court found the scale of violations too extensive for such relief.
The Municipal Council and Andaman and Nicobar Administration detailed that the total constructed floor area was 1156.50 sq.m, vastly exceeding the approved 293.49 sq.m., with unauthorized floors including a third and fourth floor that had no sanction. These violations were beyond the scope of the modified Master Plan 2030, which allowed limited relaxation but explicitly excluded major infractions such as additional unauthorized floors, illegal commercial conversions, and encroachments on public land.
The court emphasized that public spirited citizens have locus standi to approach judicial and civic authorities for enforcement of building laws and demolition of illegal structures, citing precedents such as Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and highlighting the burden unauthorized constructions place on public amenities and urban safety.
Rejecting the appellant’s plea for reconsideration based on a pending government policy for regularization, the Bench held that courts lack jurisdiction to direct regularization of illegal structures where civic authorities have determined non-regularizability. It underscored the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality and that the rule of law demands strict compliance with building regulations.
The judgment drew heavily on Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court case, which condemned unauthorized constructions as detrimental to planned development, public safety, and environmental concerns. The Court reiterated directions from the apex court advocating stringent inspections, strict issuance of completion and occupation certificates, and penal actions against violators and errant officials.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court upheld the demolition order and extended the time for execution by eight weeks from communication of the judgment. It also left the issue of reclaiming encroached revenue land to the administration to address as per law. The judgment is a firm reminder that urban planning norms and building laws are to be enforced with rigor, and neither courts nor authorities can countenance illegal constructions under the guise of regularization when they threaten public welfare and planned development.
Bottom Line:
Unauthorized construction causing non-compoundable violations in terms of setback, plot coverage, FAR, and height cannot be regularized under the modified master plan. Courts are not empowered to direct regularization of illegal structures, especially when civic authorities have determined their non-regularizability.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Building Bye-Laws, 1999, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Town and Country Planning Regulation, 1994, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Shops and Establishments Regulation, 2004, Section 9(4) of the Town and Country Planning Regulation, 1994
