SC Sets Aside Coercive Demolition Order Amid Pending Regularisation Issues
Copy Link
Share
Save
In a decisive intervention against judicial inconsistency, the Supreme Court has set aside a High Court direction ordering the demolition of alleged unauthorised constructions while parallel regularisation proceedings remain sub-judice before the top court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar addressed the propriety of passing conflicting orders regarding the same subject matter. The Court scrutinized whether demolition directions could be issued by a High Court while prior protective orders awaiting Supreme Court determination on regularisation schemes were still operational.
Key Takeaways
Judicial Consistency Paramount: High Courts cannot issue conflicting coercive directions on subject matters already protected by earlier co-ordinate bench orders.
Sub-Judice Protection Preserved: Authorities must await the Supreme Court's final determination on statutory regularisation schemes before proceeding with demolition action.
Status Quo Mandate: Parties are obligated to maintain status quo on contested structures pending ultimate legal resolution of regularisation provisions.
The Supreme Court observed that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) was bound by the High Court's earlier order dated September 27, 2023, which restrained coercive action pending final adjudication on the validity of regularisation schemes. The High Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider its previous binding direction, leading to directly contradictory outcomes.
The Court has following directions:
"In the light of this position on record, the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.12779/2024 is set aside. It is directed that the appellants, the CMDA and the second respondent would be governed by the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.25737/2023. The appellants and the respondents would be at liberty to take further steps after the issue of regularisation is decided in the pending civil appeals before this Court. In the circumstances of the case, status quo shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the constructions undertaken at the building till the pending issues are decided."
Highlighting the legal error in issuing hasty demolition mandates while parent legal issues remain pending, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The issue pertaining to regularisation of unauthorised constructions not having been finally resolved and the parties having been directed to await decision in the pending proceedings, in our view, the High Court was not justified in issuing a direction to the CMDA to demolish the unauthorised constructions/deviations within a period of eight weeks from the date of its order. We, therefore, find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law being contrary to its earlier order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.25737/2023."
Ratio
When a High Court has explicitly restrained statutory authorities from taking coercive action against an alleged unauthorised construction pending the Supreme Court's adjudication on the underlying regularisation framework, it cannot subsequently issue contradictory directions to demolish the same structure without resolving or accounting for its earlier binding protective order.
Background
The dispute originated over alleged unauthorized constructions and deviations in a building named 'Indira Arcade'. The first respondent filed multiple proceedings seeking removal of deviations made by the appellants. In response, the appellants submitted applications for regularisation under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 read with Government Order Nos. 110 and 111 dated June 22, 2017.
However, in C. Prabhakaran vs. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav & Ors., the High Court declared G.O. Nos. 110 and 111 invalid, halting regularisation under those notifications. That decision was subsequently challenged in M/s Billroth Hospital Ltd. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, which remains pending before the Supreme Court alongside connected appeals.
Taking note of this pendency, the High Court had previously allowed Writ Petition No. 25737/2023 on September 27, 2023, restraining the CMDA from taking coercive action against the appellants until the Supreme Court decided the larger regularisation issue. Despite this operational restraint, the High Court subsequently passed the impugned order on April 28, 2025, directing CMDA to demolish the unauthorized constructions within eight weeks.
Allowing the civil appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the demolition order dated April 28, 2025, restored the protective regime under the order dated September 27, 2023, and ordered the parties to maintain status quo until the pending regularisation issues are formally resolved.
Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 912
Case Title: G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Others v. M.D. Lokeswari & Another
Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 826
Breaking News
