Introduction:
In a crucial judgment reinforcing the foundational principles of natural justice and fair hearing, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had issued sweeping directions for the removal of unauthorized and illegal constructions in Gurugram’s DLF City. The case titled Gaurav Kohli & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1061) was heard by a division bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi. The Court noted that the High Court’s directions—issued without granting an opportunity of hearing to affected property owners who were not impleaded as parties—were legally unsustainable. Emphasizing that fairness and hearing are sine qua non for any judicial or quasi-judicial determination, the Supreme Court observed that while unauthorized or illegal constructions can never be protected under law, such determinations must follow due process. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the writ petition to the High Court with directions that all affected owners be permitted to file applications for impleadment within two weeks from the date of the order (i.e., up to November 11), and directed the High Court to decide the case afresh within six months after providing due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The Court also allowed the State authorities to give wide publicity to this order so that all affected individuals can approach the court and safeguard their rights.
Arguments of the Petitioners (Property Owners):
The petitioners, a group of aggrieved property owners from DLF City, Gurugram, challenged the High Court’s sweeping directions passed in February 2025 in a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the alleged illegal and commercial use of residential properties. The petitioners were represented by a formidable legal team including senior advocates Mrs. Kaadambari Singh, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Mr. Shikhil Suri, and others, along with a large group of advocates on record. The core contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that the High Court had issued blanket directions for demolition and removal of alleged unauthorized constructions without impleading or hearing the affected property owners, thereby violating their constitutional right to natural justice under Article 14 and their right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners argued that many of the affected owners had already obtained favorable decrees from competent civil courts validating their constructions, while others had ongoing civil suits pending before various forums concerning their property titles and uses. The High Court’s order, passed in a PIL that did not include them as parties, effectively nullified their vested rights without adjudication, undermining the sanctity of judicial determinations and pending proceedings. They submitted that such directions were not only arbitrary but also in derogation of settled legal principles that no person can be condemned unheard—audi alteram partem.
Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the High Court’s directions under Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (HDRUA Act) exceeded the permissible limits of judicial intervention in a PIL. They argued that while the object of the PIL might have been bona fide—to curb unauthorized constructions—the manner in which the High Court acted was procedurally flawed, as it failed to differentiate between genuinely illegal constructions and those that had been duly sanctioned or regularized by competent authorities. Moreover, it was emphasized that several of the alleged “illegal” constructions were not commercial establishments but small professional offices permitted under zoning regulations, and a sweeping demolition order would cause irreparable loss to law-abiding citizens.
The petitioners also highlighted that the High Court’s order indirectly affected the jurisdiction of civil courts, as it directed state authorities to act within two months without considering ongoing legal proceedings. Such a direction, they argued, prejudiced their right to have disputes resolved through due judicial process. They therefore prayed that the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restore the writ petition for fresh adjudication after impleading all affected persons and providing them a fair opportunity to present their case.
Arguments of the Respondents (State of Haryana and Others):
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and a team of senior and additional advocates general, including Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., and advocates appearing for the State of Haryana, DLF Limited, and other respondents, defended the High Court’s order by arguing that the issue involved rampant illegal construction and unauthorized commercial use of residential properties in Gurugram’s planned colonies. The respondents submitted that such misuse not only violated the terms of development licenses under the HDRUA Act, 1975 but also disrupted urban planning, traffic management, and the rights of genuine residents who suffered due to encroachments and illegal conversions.
They argued that the High Court was well within its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions to ensure that the statutory provisions of the HDRUA Act and related building regulations were strictly enforced. The respondents maintained that the High Court’s directions were aimed at protecting public interest and maintaining urban discipline rather than targeting individual property owners. The State’s counsel further asserted that the petitioners’ plea of being unheard was misplaced because the directions were general in nature, applicable only to illegal constructions as determined by law, and did not prejudice any legitimate or authorized property owner.
The respondents relied on precedents such as Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa and Esha Ekta Apartments v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, to contend that unauthorized constructions cannot claim equity or sympathy, and any regularization inconsistent with the law is impermissible. The Solicitor General emphasized that the Supreme Court has consistently held that courts must not tolerate illegality in urban development, as it leads to chaos and environmental degradation. However, the respondents agreed that while enforcement should continue, due opportunity of hearing could be provided to avoid procedural infirmities.
The respondents also pointed out that under Section 15 of the HDRUA Act, authorities are empowered to take action against violations after following due procedure, and the High Court’s direction merely reminded them of their statutory obligation. Therefore, they urged the Supreme Court to uphold the High Court’s order to the extent it sought to curb illegality but to modify it appropriately if procedural lapses were identified.
Court’s Judgment:
Delivering its judgment, the Supreme Court carefully analyzed the competing claims of legality, fairness, and public interest. The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi acknowledged the High Court’s concern regarding illegal and unauthorized constructions in Gurugram but held that the sweeping directions for demolition and removal of constructions were procedurally unsustainable as they were issued without impleading or hearing the affected property owners. The Court underscored that fairness and hearing are the cornerstones of judicial decision-making, and even in cases involving apparent illegality, no adverse order can be passed against persons without giving them a reasonable opportunity to present their defense.
The bench observed, “We are constrained to observe that unauthorized or illegal construction and commercial use of residential property contrary to the norms, rules, and regulations cannot be protected. But the determination of such fact ought to be made by the authorities affording due opportunity to the owners and occupiers. In the present case, the direction, as issued by the High Court, either with respect to the jurisdiction of the civil court or for removal of the constructions, appears to be without joining the appellants as party in the writ petition. It goes without saying that opportunity of hearing is a sine qua non for fair administration of justice and the observations of the Court should not adjudicate the rights of any parties unheard.”
The Court held that the High Court’s approach violated the principle of audi alteram partem, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution under Article 14. The Supreme Court reiterated that even when addressing issues of public interest through PILs, courts must adhere to due process and ensure that affected individuals are given notice and opportunity to be heard before their rights are prejudiced. The bench emphasized that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to override statutory rights or pending civil proceedings.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the writ petition for fresh consideration. It directed that all affected property owners must be allowed to seek impleadment within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order (i.e., up to November 11). The Court also authorized state authorities to give wide publicity to this order so that affected persons could approach the High Court and become parties to the proceedings. Importantly, the bench clarified that this opportunity was being granted not to legitimize illegality but to ensure procedural fairness and prevent miscarriage of justice.
Further, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the restored PILs expeditiously—preferably within six months—after giving all concerned parties due opportunity to present their cases. The Court also made it clear that pending civil suits or decrees obtained by the petitioners must be duly considered in the final adjudication by the High Court. While disposing of the appeals, the Supreme Court balanced the twin objectives of upholding the rule of law against illegal constructions and ensuring that citizens are not deprived of their rights without hearing.
This judgment serves as an important reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to procedural fairness even in matters involving public interest and statutory enforcement. It clarifies that while courts and authorities must act firmly against illegality, they cannot do so at the cost of fundamental due process. The Supreme Court’s intervention restores not only the writ petitions but also public confidence in the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.