Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order directing the removal of unauthorized and illegal constructions in Gurugram’s DLF City, holding that such a broad directive could not be issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to affected owners who were not parties to the proceedings. Instead, the Court restored the writ petitions before the High Court and permitted all affected property owners to seek impleadment within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order, i.e., up to November 11. It further allowed the State authorities to give wide publicity to the order to facilitate participation of all concerned in the ongoing public interest litigation.

The case arose from multiple appeals filed by certain property owners challenging a common order dated 13 February 2025 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in two public interest litigations concerning alleged unauthorized constructions in Gurugram’s DLF City. The appellants contended that the High Court’s directions, which called for the closure of civil suits and removal of constructions deemed illegal, were issued without impleading them as parties or affording an opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that several of the appellants had already obtained decrees in their respective civil suits, while others had pending proceedings before civil courts concerning ownership and use of their properties.

Also Read:Arbitration | Supreme Court Upholds Enforcement Of Multi-Million-Dollar Award; Execution Objections Maintainable Only If Decree Is Void Or Without Jurisdiction

The appellants maintained that the High Court’s reliance on Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, to hold that civil courts lacked jurisdiction, had prejudiced their right to contest alleged violations. The State of Haryana, through its Additional Advocate General, stated before the Supreme Court that numerous violations of construction norms had been recorded, including commercial use of residential properties and construction beyond permissible limits. It was further submitted that notices had been issued to individual occupants, but instead of responding, they had approached civil courts lacking jurisdiction under the Act. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in the High Court submitted that the directions were based on action taken reports and memoranda issued by the District Town Planner concerning non-compoundable violations.

The Supreme Court recorded that “unauthorized or illegal construction [and] commercial use of residential property contrary to the norms, rules and regulations cannot be protected.” However, it stated that “the determination of such fact ought to be made by the authorities affording due opportunity to the owners and occupiers.”

The Bench observed that the High Court’s directions appeared to have been passed “without joining the appellants as party in the writ petition.” It further recorded that “opportunity of hearing is a sine qua non for fair administration of justice and the observations of the Court should not adjudicate the rights of any parties unheard.”

The Court stated that the impugned order, by directing closure of civil suits and removal of constructions, was issued in a manner that could adversely affect numerous individuals not heard in the proceedings. It observed that the High Court’s opinion on the bar of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, and its consequent directions, required reconsideration after hearing all concerned.

The Bench noted that “it is suffice to observe that the appellants may bring into the notice of the Court or of the authorities that the violation as alleged is not justified and its adjudication by the Court or by the authorities is necessitated.”

Also Read: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Five-Year Delay, Cites Lack of Proximate Link Between Offence and Custody

The Supreme Court stated: “In this view, we are constrained to set aside the order of the High Court and direct to restore the writ petitions (Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1528 and 2106 of 2021). The appellants herein are directed to move appropriate application within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order and file their response, after affording opportunity, appropriate orders would be passed by the High Court.” The Bench further directed that “if any person who is going to be affected applies to the High Court within the time as specified, they would also be permitted to join.” It added that “the authorities of the State are at liberty to give wide publicity to this order… [and] the PILs which are restored shall be decided at the earliest, as far as possible, after affording opportunity to all concerned within a period of six months.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mrs. Kaadambari Singh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Arvind Verma, Sr. Adv.; with various Advocates-on-Record and counsel as listed in the proceedings.

For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.; Ms. Karishma Malani, A.A.G.; and other assisting counsel as recorded.

Case Title: Gaurav Kohli & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 13045–13046 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13708–13709 of 2025).
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi