JUDGMENT : The Court made the following: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) Aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1048 of 2021, the appellants have preferred the present Special Appeal. By the said order, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants-writ petitioners, wherein the appellants-writ petitioners had challenged the order/letter dated 11.05.2021 issued by the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority. By the said order, the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority had informed the appellants-writ petitioners that since they have raised illegal construction, the illegal construction would be demolished on 27.05.2021. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. 3. This case has had a chequered history, which is as under:- The petitioners claim to have inherited a property, located in Khasra No. 652, in Village Rawli Mehdoodpur, District Hardiwar. According to them, on 04.06.1986, the Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority (in short “the Development Authority") was notified as a Development Authority. Consequently, thirty-nine villages of District Haridwar were included within the territory declared as part of the Development Authority. The property belonging to the petitioners fell within the area demarcated as under the jurisdiction of the Development Authority. The petitioners raised an illegal construction in the early part of the year 2017. Consequently, a neighbor, namely Mr. Mange Ram, who is involved in litigation with the petitioners, filed a complaint before the Development Authority. Consequently, on 25.02.2017, the Development Authority sealed the building belonging to the petitioners. Immediately, the petitioners filed an application for seeking compounding of their illegal construction. However, by order dated 03.08.2017, the Development Authority rejected their application; it passed an order for demolition of the building belonging to the petitioners. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2017, they filed an Appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp, Dehradun, the respondent no. 3. However, by order dated 23.08.2017, the respondent no. 3 dismissed their Appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2017, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition before the Additional Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Town Development Authority, Dehradun, the respondent no.2. However, even the said Revision Petition was dismissed by order dated 06.12.2017. 3. However, by order dated 23.08.2017, the respondent no. 3 dismissed their Appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2017, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition before the Additional Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Town Development Authority, Dehradun, the respondent no.2. However, even the said Revision Petition was dismissed by order dated 06.12.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 06.12.2017, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition, namely Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3294 of 2017, before this Court. But, even the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 26.06.2018. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2018, the petitioners filed a Special Appeal before a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 08.08.2018, the learned Coordinate Bench dismissed the Special Appeal. However, it seems that the Development Authority did not take any action against the petitioners from 08.08.2018 till 11.05.2021. Thus, the Development Authority sat quietly over the entire issue for a period of almost three years. It is only on 11.05.2021 that the Development Authority issued a notice to the petitioners informing them that it plans to demolish the illegal construction raised by them, on 27.05.2021. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court. However, by the order dated 07.06.2021, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the present Special Appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions :- Firstly, the petitioners have invested a huge amount of money in raising the building. Therefore, if the demolition is permitted, the petitioners will suffer a great financial loss. Secondly, the Development Authority is not demolishing other illegal constructions, which exists in the area. Therefore, it is adopting a pick and choose policy. Hence, there is a hostile discrimination against the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the Development Authority deserves to be set-aside. And the property of the petitioners deserves to be protected by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the Development Authority, the respondent no. 4, has raised the following counter-contentions:- Firstly, under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, no construction can be raised by a person until and unless a plan is approved by the Development Authority. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the Development Authority, the respondent no. 4, has raised the following counter-contentions:- Firstly, under Section 14(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, no construction can be raised by a person until and unless a plan is approved by the Development Authority. However, the petitioners have constructed a building without getting the plan sanctioned by the Development Authority. Therefore, the construction is patently an illegal one. Secondly, even in the year 2017 when the complaint was received from the petitioners' neighbor, the petitioners' building was sealed on 25.02.2017. Although, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 32 of the Act for compounding the illegal construction, since the construction was more than the permissible limit, the illegal construction could not be compounded by the Development Authority. Therefore, the Development Authority had rejected their application for compounding, by its order dated 03.08.2017. Thirdly, repeatedly, the petitioners have been trying to abuse the process of law by filing an Appeal, a Revision, and a Writ Petition. But, all their efforts have resulted in failures, as the petitioners have consistently lost before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp, Dehradun, the Additional Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Town Development Authority, Dehradun, and even before this Court, both before a learned Single Judge, and before a learned Division Bench. Therefore, the tactics being adopted by the petitioners should be deprecated in the harshest terms. Fourthly, the concept of equality is never in a negative term. Merely, because the Development Authority is yet to take action against the illegal constructions raised by others, the petitioners cannot plead that their illegal construction should be left untouched. Lastly, the proliferation of urbanization requires that urban planning should be implemented in a systematic, and a logical manner. If illegal constructions were permitted to mushroom here and there, it will destroy the entire concept of urban planning. In order to ensure that urban planning is systematic and logical, a large number of acts have been enacted, such as the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. According to the aforesaid Act, an illegal construction cannot be permitted to exist. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition. Hence, the learned counsel for the Development Authority has supported the impugned order. 6. Mr. According to the aforesaid Act, an illegal construction cannot be permitted to exist. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition. Hence, the learned counsel for the Development Authority has supported the impugned order. 6. Mr. Rahul Consul, the learned counsel for the Additional Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Town Development Authority, Dehradun, the respondent no. 2, has echoed the arguments of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the Development Authority, the respondent no. 4. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order. 8. Town Planning is essential for the systematic growth of a city. India has an ancient history of Town Planning, beginning with the Indus Valley Civilization. This tradition has continued for the last five millennia. With the sky-rocketing population, and with the explosion in urbanisation, it is imperative that the cities and towns be constructed systematically and logically. If illegal constructions were permitted to mushroom allover the city, it would bring chaos and anarchy to the cities. It is for this reason that Town and Urban Planning laws exist in our country. It is for this reason that Development Authorities are required to draft and promulgate master plans. Under the master plans, the cities are divided into different segments, such as residential area, commercial area, institutional area, and industrial area. Certain parts of the cities are clearly demarcated for public spaces, such as parks and entertainment areas. These laws further contain certain prohibition such as prohibiting any illegal construction to be raised. The very purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the object behind the individual class of construction is not confused even within a given class, such as residential area. Keeping in mind the right of a neighbour to light and air, keeping in mind the need to preserve the privacy of individuals and families, keeping in mind the hygienic conditions, which must exist in an urban area, certain limitations have been placed on construction of a given building. Thus, the law provides for setting off certain areas inside a plot while constructing a building. Even the height of a building is limited by law. 9. Thus, the law provides for setting off certain areas inside a plot while constructing a building. Even the height of a building is limited by law. 9. In order to ensure that the construction is in tune with the requirements of the law, Section 14(1) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 clearly provides that no construction can be raised without the permission of the Development Authority. Section 27 of the Act further provides that any construction raised without the prior permission of the Development Authority would be liable to be demolished. Although, under Section 32 of the Act, there is a provision for compounding an illegal construction, but even then illegal construction to a limited extent can be compounded. 10. Recently, in the case of Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors. [Judgment in Civil Appeal No.5041 of 2021, dated 31.08.2021], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of illegal construction, has observed as follows:- 146. The rampant increase in unauthorized constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several decisions of this Court. This state of affairs has often come to pass in no small a measure because of the collusion between developers and planning authorities. 147. From commencement to completion, the process of construction by developers is regulated within the framework of law. The regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the structures under construction, obtaining clearances from different departments (fire, garden, sewage, etc.), and the issuance of occupation and completion certificates. While the availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it has to be balanced with two crucial considerations – the protection of the environment and the well-being and safety of those who occupy these constructions. The regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which will have a severe negative environmental impact are not sanctioned. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards. Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law. 148. The judgments of this Court spanning the last four decades emphasize the duty of planning bodies, while sanctioning building plans and enforcing building regulations and bye-laws to conform to the norms by which they are governed. A breach by the planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the violation of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance. Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between builders and planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet, confronted with the economic might of developers and the might of legal authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle for rights with little certainty of outcomes. As this case demonstrates, they are denied access to information and are victims of misinformation. Hence the law must step in to protect their legitimate concerns. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners have raised construction of their building without seeking the prior permission of the Development Authority. Undoubtedly, even on 25.02.2017, their building was sealed by the Development Authority. On 03.08.2017, their application for compounding has been dismissed by the Development Authority. The order dated 03.08.2017 has been upheld by the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp, Dehradun, by the Additional Chief Administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Town Development Authority, Dehradun, and even by this Court, both by a learned Single Judge, and by a learned Division Bench. Therefore, the said order dated 03.08.2017 has reached finality. Even if the Development Authority did not take any action against the petitioners between the year 2018-2021, even then it would not make the impugned notice dated 11.05.2021 an illegal one. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unjustified in claiming that the petitioners are being discriminated against in a hostile manner. Even if the Development Authority did not take any action against the petitioners between the year 2018-2021, even then it would not make the impugned notice dated 11.05.2021 an illegal one. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unjustified in claiming that the petitioners are being discriminated against in a hostile manner. Merely because the Development Authority may not have taken any action against other illegal constructions, it would not prevent the Development Authority from taking any action against the petitioners. After all, there is no concept of equality in a negative sense. Moreover, there is no estoppel against a Statute. Therefore, the Development Authority is justified in issuing a notice to the petitioners that it will demolish the illegal construction raised by them. 13. A patent illegality cannot be protected by the Court. If the Court were to rush to the rescue of those, who are indulging in illegal construction, this Court itself will become a party to an illegal act. It is, indeed, asettled principle of law that a Court can never be a party to an illegal act. 14. The facts mentioned above have been duly noticed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 07.06.2021. 15. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present Special Appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.