The Supreme Court has directed municipal authorities to take action, including sealing, against residential premises being used for commercial purposes in violation of the applicable Master Plan, sanctioned building plan or building bye-laws.In Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., the Court warned authorities against adopting a “pick-and-choose” approach, stressing that enforcement must be uniform. Premises located in areas clearly earmarked for residential use are to be given priority for action.The Court also clarified that merely because litigation concerning title or other issues is pending, authorities are not prevented from acting against unauthorised use. Completely unauthorised constructions may also face sealing or demolition in accordance with law.
The decision is in line with earlier rulings including Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), where the Supreme Court held that unauthorised commercial construction on residential land cannot be legitimised merely because it has existed for a long time, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, concerning sealing of premises for misuse.The applicable Master Plan, zoning regulations, sanctioned building plan and municipal laws will determine whether a particular commercial use is permissible. Authorities must also enforce these restrictions consistently rather than selectively.
+91 88262 30101
The Supreme Court has directed municipal authorities to take action, including sealing, against residential premises being used for commercial purposes in violation of the applicable Master Plan, sanctioned building plan or building bye-laws.In Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., the Court warned authorities against adopting a “pick-and-choose” approach, stressing that enforcement must be uniform. Premises located in areas clearly earmarked for residential use are to be given priority for action.The Court also clarified that merely because litigation concerning title or other issues is pending, authorities are not prevented from acting against unauthorised use. Completely unauthorised constructions may also face sealing or demolition in accordance with law.
The decision is in line with earlier rulings including Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), where the Supreme Court held that unauthorised commercial construction on residential land cannot be legitimised merely because it has existed for a long time, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, concerning sealing of premises for misuse.The applicable Master Plan, zoning regulations, sanctioned building plan and municipal laws will determine whether a particular commercial use is permissible. Authorities must also enforce these restrictions consistently rather than selectively.