The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with orders passed against a property owner in Goa over allegations of unauthorised construction and misuse of premises, holding that subsequent assurances and undertakings could not erase established violations of statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made these observations while hearing a challenge to findings that the petitioner had exceeded the scope of permission granted for repair work and had subsequently used the property for commercial purposes in violation of applicable regulations.
The petitioner sought to limit the controversy by contending that the premises were presently being used only as a residential dwelling. It was further submitted that any construction found to be in excess of the permissions granted could be removed and that the residential portion of the property deserved protection from coercive action.
The petitioner also offered an undertaking before the Court that the premises would not be used for any purpose other than residential use in the future. On this basis, the Court was requested to grant relief and protect the property from adverse consequences.
The Bench, however, was not persuaded by the submissions. It took note of the inspection report and the findings recorded by the authorities, which had already been affirmed by the High Court. The material on record indicated that the premises had been used for commercial purposes beyond the scope of the permission originally granted.
The Court observed that the central issue was not merely the present use of the property but the established violations that had already occurred. It indicated that an assurance of future compliance could not be relied upon to overcome findings regarding past breaches of law.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over the petitioner’s conduct and observed that the petitioner appeared to have proceeded on the assumption that ownership of the property entitled him to undertake activities beyond the limits prescribed by law and regulatory permissions.
The Court further noted that authorities had already taken action against several similarly situated structures found in violation of the applicable coastal and building regulations. It observed that granting protection to the petitioner despite established violations would result in unequal treatment and undermine the enforcement of regulatory norms.
Emphasising the principle of parity and consistency in the application of law, the Bench noted that eight other structures had already been demolished for similar violations. In such circumstances, extending protection to the petitioner’s property would create an anomalous situation and cause injustice to others against whom action had already been taken.
The Court rejected the contention that the petitioner had been unfairly singled out and held that the case did not warrant any exceptional intervention under its jurisdiction. It reiterated that post-facto undertakings or offers to rectify violations cannot by themselves justify judicial interference where findings of unauthorised construction and misuse are supported by evidence on record.
Finding no legal infirmity in the conclusions reached by the authorities and affirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and dismissed the petition at the admission stage.
The post Supreme Court denies relief to Goa property owner in coastal regulation violation case appeared first on India Legal.