Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Common order in connected writ petitions
Where multiple writ petitions arise out of inter-related disputes concerning the same property, same parties and overlapping issues, the High Court is justified in hearing them together and disposing them by a common order.
(Para 1)
Municipal Law — Illegal constructions — Locus standi of neighbouring residents
Residents of the locality have locus standi to question illegal constructions which disrupt the character of a residential area and violate sanctioned building plans, as such constructions invade their personal and legal interests.
(Paras 18–19)
Relied on: Sri K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi
Municipal Law — Building permission — Challenge by third party
A building permit can be questioned by a third party only on limited grounds, namely:
(i) claim of title or legal right over the property, or
(ii) violation of zoning regulations.
In the absence of infringement of any legal right, a neighbour lacks locus standi to challenge the grant of building permission.
(Paras 21–22)
Town Planning — Residential permission — Construction contrary to sanctioned plan
Where a building is sanctioned for residential use, but the material on record including photographs, inspection reports and construction features indicate that a commercial structure was constructed from inception, the action amounts to construction contrary to the sanctioned plan.
(Paras 29–30)
Municipal Law — Subsequent zoning change — Effect
Subsequent change of land use from residential zone to commercial zone under a revised master plan permits issuance of fresh building permission for commercial use, provided the construction conforms to the applicable rules and zoning regulations.
(Paras 28, 32)
Municipal Law — Building permit — Procedural irregularity
A distinction must be drawn between procedural irregularity and substantive illegality. Mere procedural deviations in granting permission do not vitiate the sanction in the absence of infringement of a legal right.
(Para 22)
Municipal Law — Occupancy Certificate
When a building conforms to zoning regulations and building rules prevailing at the relevant time, and no deviations are pointed out, there is no justification to withhold issuance of Occupancy Certificate.
(Paras 32–33)
Municipal Corporations Act — Demolition / closure orders — Principles of natural justice
Orders directing closure of premises or removal of alleged unauthorised constructions, passed without issuance of statutory show-cause notice, violate procedural safeguards and are liable to be set aside, with liberty to the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
(Para 35)
Equitable jurisdiction — Costs
Where parties make misleading pleadings and suppress material facts, yet the construction ultimately conforms to zoning regulations, the Court may take a balanced approach by imposing exemplary costs instead of directing demolition.
(Paras 30–31)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The batch of writ petitions arose from long-standing neighbourhood disputes relating to construction activities in Bhimavaram Municipality, involving allegations of:
construction of a commercial building under the guise of a residential plan,
grant of fresh commercial permission after change of zoning,
refusal to issue Occupancy Certificate, and
action taken by the Municipality against the complainant himself for unauthorised commercial activity.
The Court first addressed locus standi, holding that neighbours have a right to challenge constructions that violate sanctioned plans in a residential area (W.P. No.15425 of 2023), but do not have locus to challenge a building permit granted in accordance with zoning regulations merely on procedural grounds (W.P. No.17367 of 2024).
On facts, relying on photographs, inspection reports and pleadings, the Court concluded that the structure was commercial in nature from inception, contrary to the original residential permission. However, the Court also noted:
subsequent change of zoning to commercial under the master plan dated 17-01-2024,
grant of commercial building permission by EUDA on 28-06-2024, and
absence of any violation of current zoning regulations.
Balancing equities, the Court refrained from ordering demolition, imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the builders for misleading pleadings, and permitted consideration of Occupancy Certificate.
With respect to municipal action against the complainant’s own property (bar and restaurant), the Court found procedural violations, set aside the closure order, and directed fresh proceedings after issuance of statutory notice.
RATIO DECIDENDI
A neighbouring resident has locus standi to challenge constructions made in violation of sanctioned building plans in a residential area; however, once zoning regulations permit the construction and no legal right is infringed, procedural irregularities alone do not vitiate building permission or justify interference, and municipal action affecting property rights must comply with statutory notice requirements and principles of natural justice.
