Demolition of urban slums using muscle power and political might to raise luxury condominiums has become so common that even Bollywood has created films with sardonic titles like Shanghai. The Supreme Court has also written reams of judgments highlighting the injustice of it all.
Last fortnight, the court painted a grim picture of “planned development” in yet another judgment. “The common man feels cheated,” the court said, “when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised constructions are supported by people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plans. Reports of demolition of hutments belonging to poor and disadvantaged sections of society frequently appear in the media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multi-storeyed structure raised by economically affluent people...
“The failure of the state apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws are enforced only against the poor and all compromises are made by the state machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with power corridors.”
The remarks were made in an exceptional case, in which the Kolkata Municipal Corporation enforced the rules for demolition of illegal constructions (Dipak Kumar vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation). The owner and a building company joined hands to erect a multi-storeyed building violating the regulations. The authorities demolished part of the structure two years ago. However, the illegal construction was resumed. This was challenged in the Calcutta high court by a public-spirited citizen.
Though the single-judge bench ordered demolition of the structure, the division bench overruled him, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court. It allowed the authorities to pull down the illegal building within a month. The purchasers of the flats shall be repaid their money with 18 per cent interest and the land owner shall pay Rs 25 lakh to the legal aid society.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has ordered demolition of illegal multi-storeyed buildings. A quick look at some earlier cases would show that the malady covers all metropolitan cities. In Pratibha Coop Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra, the court approved the order of the Mumbai municipal corporation to demolish illegal buildings and remarked: “We would like to observe that this case should be a pointer to all builders that making of unauthorised constructions never pays and is against the interest of society at large.” Despite the court’s hope, the two worst scandals of illegal housing complexes in recent times have come from that part of the country.
In the case of Friends Colony vs State of Orissa, the court remarked that unwary purchaser of flats are cheated by builders who pocket the money and quickly vanish. Local authorities, in this case Cuttack municipal corporation, with their engineers and inspectors “either do not act or connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations,” the judgment read. “If such activities are to stop, some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations.”
There have been several other instances in which the court took a tough stand. It ordered the demolition of a building meant for tourists since it violated environmental laws in the case, Piedade Filomena vs State of Goa. In another case, M I Builders vs Radhey Shyam, the court ordered reconstruction of a park after demolition of a shopping complex constructed at more than Rs 100 crore.
The national capital and its outgrowth to Haryana and Uttar Pradesh abound in such cases. The judgment in the case, Shanti Sports Club vs Union of India, lamented that despite repeated decisions of the Supreme Court and high courts, “builders and other affluent people have, over the years, shown scant respect for the regulatory mechanism. Those in power have come forward to protect the wrongdoers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularisation of illegal constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. The executive and political apparatus must take serious view of the menace and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others; else even the rural areas will soon witness similar chaotic conditions.”
Most illegal constructions are done swiftly and quietly, before the people affected by them come to realise the damage to the environment and their quality of life. Once the work is completed, any objection is met with pleas of fait accompli, loss of investment, compassion and balance of convenience. The well-heeled builder will offer to compound the offence with a heavy fine and the local authorities will be quick to support him, so that they can wash their hands off the transgressions. In such cases, the courts must not grant a gentleman’s pardon but insist on calling in the implosion engineers.
