Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court has taken a strong stance against the rampant issue of unauthorised constructions in Uttar Pradesh, directing the state government to develop a comprehensive policy to tackle illegal buildings across residential, commercial, and industrial zones. The case, Lt. Col. Ashok Kumar (Retd.) vs. State of U.P. Thr. Principal Secy. Urban Dev. and Planning & Ors. Originated from a PIL filed in 2012 concerning illegal constructions in Lucknow, where authorities failed to take any concrete action. Over the past 13 years, several other petitions addressing similar concerns have been tagged with this PIL, highlighting the persistent negligence of development authorities. A division bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made it clear that unauthorised constructions, especially those that alter the fundamental structure of sanctioned plans, cannot be regularised through compounding. The Court also directed the state to conduct surveys of buildings that deviate from approved plans once they reach the plinth level. Expressing dissatisfaction with the government’s response, the Court rejected an affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Planning and instructed a more detailed submission outlining actionable measures to curb unauthorised constructions effectively.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner, Lt. Col. Ashok Kumar (Retd.), had filed the PIL in 2012, raising concerns about unchecked illegal constructions in Lucknow. He argued that despite numerous complaints and legal provisions, the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) had failed to act against unauthorised structures. Over the years, many similar petitions from different regions were tagged with this case, making it a landmark PIL on unauthorised constructions in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner contended that the administration’s inaction had led to a proliferation of illegal buildings, which not only violated city planning norms but also posed safety risks. He emphasised that merely compounding violations through penalties was not an adequate solution, as this allowed builders to construct unauthorised buildings with impunity, knowing they could later get them regularised by paying fines. The petitioner sought strict enforcement of building regulations, demolition of unauthorised structures, and accountability of officers who failed to prevent such constructions.
On the other hand, the Uttar Pradesh government, through the Principal Secretary of Housing and Urban Planning, submitted an affidavit detailing its existing mechanism for dealing with unauthorised constructions. The government argued that the process of compounding—allowing minor deviations from the sanctioned plans by levying penalties—was a legal and practical approach to urban planning. The state contended that demolition of every unauthorised structure would be impractical and could lead to widespread displacement and economic losses. It also pointed out that urbanisation pressures and increasing population density contributed to deviations from approved plans. However, the government assured the Court that it was taking steps to strengthen monitoring mechanisms and had issued directions to development authorities to be more vigilant. The affidavit highlighted certain measures, such as stricter approval processes, digital monitoring of construction sites, and penalties for violations. Despite these claims, the Court found the affidavit unsatisfactory and rejected it, instructing the government to present a more robust plan with concrete actions.
Court’s Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court, after hearing both sides, expressed serious concern over the unchecked rise of unauthorised constructions across Uttar Pradesh. The division bench observed that the compounding process should not be misused to validate illegal buildings, especially those that compromise the fundamental integrity of the sanctioned plans. It directed the state government to devise a comprehensive policy addressing unauthorised constructions and ensuring stricter enforcement of building regulations. The Court held that a survey must be conducted to detect deviations from approved plans at the plinth level itself so that violations could be stopped in their early stages. The bench further remarked that large-scale illegal constructions could not have been erected without the connivance or negligence of development authorities. It sought an explanation from the government on how such buildings had come up unnoticed, questioning the accountability of officials responsible for monitoring urban development.
The Court took a strong stance against the government’s affidavit, calling it vague and lacking in concrete measures. It refused to accept the submission and directed the Principal Secretary of Housing and Urban Planning to file a more detailed and actionable affidavit. The revised affidavit must outline specific measures that the government plans to implement, along with a clear timeline for execution. The Court emphasised that urban planning authorities must exercise due diligence and actively prevent unauthorised constructions rather than merely responding to violations after they have occurred. The High Court’s directions signalled a shift towards stricter enforcement and accountability in urban governance, aiming to curb the menace of illegal constructions that had plagued Uttar Pradesh’s cities for years.