Court Highlights Petitioners' Parallel Proceedings, Commercial Use of Residential Property, and Suppression of Facts; Orders Payment of Costs for Unnecessary Litigation
Agartala, 8th September 2026: The Tripura High Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by Shri Kishore Roy Acharjee and others, seeking a mandamus order to demolish unauthorized constructions comprising latrines, toilets, and a brick wall tin shed guard room in "The Royal Peace Apartment" at Battala, Agartala. The bench, presided over by Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief due to their own violation of building rules, suppression of material facts, and initiation of parallel proceedings before multiple authorities.
The petitioners had purchased flats on the ground floor of the apartment complex in 2020, originally designated for residential purposes. However, they converted the premises for commercial use, including a pathology laboratory and an eye clinic, in contravention of the approved building plan and terms of the conveyance deed. The unauthorized construction complained of was allegedly erected by the developer, respondent No. 5, beyond the approved municipal building plan.
Despite orders from the Assistant Municipal Commissioner and the Tripura Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA) directing the demolition of these structures, the developer failed to comply citing resistance from the apartment's Executive Committee and other flat owners. The developer also contended that the petitioners had suppressed the fact that they themselves initiated execution proceedings before the T-RERA and that the presence of common toilets on the ground floor is a basic necessity for support staff such as security guards and maintenance personnel.
The Court emphasized that the petitioners had initiated simultaneous proceedings before the Municipal Corporation and T-RERA for the same cause of action, which the law does not permit. Citing the Supreme Court precedent in M/s. Kabra And Associates v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev, the Court underscored the principle of election of remedies, holding that one cannot pursue multiple parallel legal remedies simultaneously.
Moreover, the Court found that the petitioners' conversion of residential flats into commercial establishments was itself a violation of building regulations and their conveyance deed, thereby affecting their entitlement to relief. Observing that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands, the Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
In addition to dismissing the petition, the Court directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 10,000 each to the High Court Bar Association within one month as costs for the litigation deemed untenable.
This judgment reiterates the importance of adherence to municipal building regulations, the requirement for a party to approach courts with clean hands, and the prohibition of simultaneous parallel proceedings for the same cause of action.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition seeking demolition of unauthorized construction is dismissed due to the petitioners' parallel proceedings, suppression of facts, and conversion of residential premises into commercial use, which is contrary to the approved building plan and conveyance deed.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950; Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Tripura Building Rules; Municipal Approved Building Plan
Shri Kishore Roy Acharjee v. State of Tripura, (Tripura) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2976805
