LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Babita Badasaria & Ors. v. Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 2013)Decided 10 Mar 2016
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 2013
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose · Justice R.K. Agrawal

Background

A builder, M/s. Saket Housing Ltd., constructed a multi-storeyed residential complex (Santosha Complex) in Patna with massive deviations from its sanctioned plan, building 9 floors with 6 flats each instead of the sanctioned 6 floors with 4 flats each. The Supreme Court had earlier (2013) upheld an order directing demolition of the unauthorized portions. Flat owners/petitioners, claiming ownership of portions ordered to be demolished, filed this writ petition seeking relief; the Court had already disposed of the writ petition in July 2014 by directing compensation of Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft. to affected flat owners (to be assessed by a court-appointed Commissioner) instead of permitting the illegal construction to stand. Several follow-up applications and proposals (including a suggestion to save some flats by sealing a "mezzanine" floor) were considered over the following two years, but the Patna Municipal Corporation opposed any compromise given the scale of the illegal deviation.

Decision Breakdown

In this final order, the Court declined to alter its earlier decision or permit any part of the illegal construction to remain, finding no reason to change its view from the 2014 disposal order. It directed that the Patna Municipal Corporation proceed with demolition in terms of the July 2014 order. However, considering that time had passed since the matter was first concluded, the Court enhanced the compensation rate payable to affected flat owners from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 7,000 per sq. ft., directed payment within six weeks, and required flat owners to vacate within one month after receiving payment. The Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to complete demolition of the unauthorized structures within four months and file a compliance report with the Court.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not allow illegal construction built in gross deviation of a sanctioned building plan to be regularized or retained merely because affected residents have lived there for years: the remedy for innocent flat purchasers lies in compensation, not in preserving an unlawful structure, and that compensation can be revised upward if enforcement drags on.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case