Unauthorised construction and encroachment justified demolition where municipal sanction was absent and adjoining property was affected.

Unauthorised RCC staircase and roof construction made without prior municipal sanction, and partly resting on a neighbouring parapet wall, was treated as liable to demolition because it encroached on the adjoining owner's premises and affected structural safety. The construction was held not to be a minor or retainable deviation, and regularisation was not permissible. The appellate and review orders affirming demolition were described as reasoned, based on the material on record, and free from legal infirmity; the review was also considered untenable as a rehearing on the merits. The demolition direction was therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unauthorised RCC staircase and roof construction were liable to demolition for want of municipal sanction and for encroaching upon the neighbouring premises. (ii) Whether the appellate and review orders affirming demolition suffered from illegality or non-application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether the unauthorised RCC staircase and roof construction were liable to demolition for want of municipal sanction and for encroaching upon the neighbouring premises.

Analysis: The construction was found to have been made without prior sanction under the municipal law. The record also showed that a portion of the staircase and connected construction rested on the neighbouring parapet wall and affected the adjoining owner's enjoyment and structural safety. In such circumstances, the construction could not be treated as a minor or retainable deviation, and regularisation was not permissible.

Conclusion: The unauthorised staircase and associated RCC construction were validly directed to be demolished.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate and review orders affirming demolition suffered from illegality or non-application of mind.

Analysis: The authorities had considered the material on record, including the nature of the construction, the absence of sanction, the earlier proceedings, and the impact on the adjoining premises. The findings were held to be reasoned and free from legal infirmity. The review was also found not maintainable as it sought a rehearing on the merits without a legally sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The appellate and review orders did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to demolition of the unauthorised staircase failed, while the adjoining owner's plea for enforcement of demolition succeeded, resulting in affirmation of the demolition direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorised construction made without municipal sanction, particularly where it encroaches upon or burdens an adjoining owner's premises and raises structural safety concerns, is liable to demolition and cannot be regularised as of right.

---