Gurgaon: Premises being used commercially in areas earmarked exclusively for residential use should, in the first instance, be sealed, Supreme Court has ruled, laying down a clear framework for authorities in such cases.The directions — issued on Sept 22 in the ongoing Loganathan vs State of Tamil Nadu proceedings — assume significance for the city, where authorities have recently intensified enforcement against alleged unauthorised commercial use of residential properties.At the same time, the SC bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan cautioned enforcement authorities against discriminatory action. The exercise must be carried out without discrimination, the SC directed, warning that “any pick-and-choose approach” would invite a strict view.DTCP has undertaken sealing and demolition drives in areas including DLF colonies, Sushant Lok-1 and South City-1 against alleged violations involving commercial establishments, PGs and unauthorised construction. The matter has been listed for Nov 23, with states, Union Territories and authorities directed to file updated status reports ahead of the hearing.The court, however, made the sanctioned land use the starting point for enforcement. It directed authorities to prioritise ensuring that no commercial activity takes place in areas earmarked exclusively for residential use. Where an area is specifically shown as residential and permission granted by the state govt or competent authority is only for residential use, commercial activity cannot take place and, if found, the premises should initially be sealed.The SC’s latest directions are likely to give further momentum to the city’s ongoing crackdown on commercial activities being run from residential premises. With the focus now firmly on sanctioned land use, approved building plans and actual use of properties, enforcement agencies are expected to intensify scrutiny across licensed colonies. The DTCP enforcement drive has already resulted in the sealing of 150 buildings in the past two months, including 98 PGs, guesthouses and hotels and 52 residential premises found to be used for other commercial activities. The exercise is continuing across 32 licensed colonies, including DLF-3, DLF-4, Sushant Lok-1 and South City-1.The court made a distinction for areas where the permitted use is not clearly specified as commercial or residential. In such cases, the question of mixed use may require consideration. Until that issue is determined, the court directed that the existing status quo on the ground should not be disturbed, although proceedings on paper can continue.Importantly, the pendency of litigation will not by itself prevent enforcement. The court said that even where a dispute concerning title or another issue is pending between private parties, or between govt and the concerned party, authorities can seal premises if their actual use violates the purpose for which the land or building was allotted and the plan was sanctioned and approved.The court also addressed structures that have no approval whatsoever. Where a structure is found to have come up wholly unauthorised and without approval from any authority, sealing or demolition, as required in accordance with law, should proceed with promptitude (without delay).The court also recorded concerns over properties being sealed and then unsealed within hours or days without any intervening development, such as a show-cause reply or a decision by the competent authority. Such selective use of the directions was specifically flagged in the order.For the city, where recent DTCP drives have involved alleged commercialisation of residential properties and violations of sanctioned plans, the order underscores that enforcement has to be tied to the legally permitted use of each property rather than simply its existing activity. Recent DTCP-related data reported in Sept showed thousands of properties across licensed colonies flagged for prima facie building-plan violations or unauthorised commercial use, though identification during a survey was itself stated not to be a conclusive determination of violation.SC ultimately clarified the governing test: authorities must examine whether the property or construction conforms to the existing Master Plan and applicable building bylaws of the competent authority.
