Anil vs Indore Municipal Corporation And Others

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2020 passed by the building officer for

removal of the structure in question / demolition of the building.

The petitioner's contention is that he is a citizen of India and he is in possession of a shop, which is situated at Sarafa Bazar, House No.42-43,

which was taken on rent by the petitioner's father in the year 1972. The petitioner is carrying out the business in the name and style of “Nageshwar

Abhushan Bhandar†and the building is in good condition. The petitioner has submitted physical inspection report dated 08.07.2019 issued by S.J.

Chasker & Associates stating that the shop in question is in good and safe condition. The petitioner's contention is that by the impugned notice, the

petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises (Annexure P-1).

Shri Baheti, learned counsel has argued before this Court that the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice under Section 310 of

M.P. Municipal Corporation Act for declaring the said house as dangerous and the powers can be exercised only by the Commissioner keeping in

view Section 309 and 310 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act after forming an opinion in that regard.

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Dharmendra Vs. Dhanjay Sharma & others (W.A. No.294/2019)

decided on 10.05.2019 and it has been argued by Shri Baheti, learned counsel that until and unless there is an opinion of the Commissioner, the building

cannot be demolished.

A reply has been filed in the matter by the Indore Municipal Corporation and it has been stated that the petitioner has concealed the material facts

while filing the present petition and the building is not at all in good shape and safe condition. It has been stated that some old report, which is dated

08.07.2019 is being relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the report itself reflects that the building is 75 years old.

The respondents have also stated that 2nd and 3rd floors of the building as well as front portion have already collapsed and the remaining portion of

the building is likely to collapse at any point of time and in order to avoid human tragedy, the action is being taken by the Indore Municipal Corporation

in larger public interest. It has also been stated that the building is situated at Sarafa Bazar, Indore, which is a heavily crowded locality and in case, the

remaining building also collapses, which will result in loss of several lives. It has also been stated that on 11.05.2020, an information was received at

the control room of Indore Municipal Corporation that two floors of the building have collapsed and the removal team was dispatched to the spot.

The team after reaching the spot found that front portion of 2nd and 3rd floors of the building have collapsed. The debris of the following portions

was removed by the corporation and thereafter on 12.05.2020, inspection of the building was conducted and a Panchnama was drawn. The

commissioner based upon the inspection report and the Panchnama and also keeping in view the fact that two floors have already collapsed has

formed an opinion keeping in view Section 310 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956. The relevant note-sheet is also on record. The opinion

has rightly been communicated to the building officer keeping in view Section 69 (4) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

The respondents have also stated that the corporation is justified in taking action in order to prevent disaster and the judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel “Dharmendra Vs. Dhanjay Sharmaâ€​ (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as an opinion has already

been formed by the Commissioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The facts of the case reveal that the building in question is a very old structure and as per the report filed by the petitioner himself the structure is

75 years old.

Shri Baheti, learned counsel while arguing the matter was fair enough in stating that the parts of 2nd and 3rd floors have collapsed, however, he

has stated that so far as the ground floor is concerned, it is safe and sound and there is no necessity to remove the ground floor also.

The facts of the case reveal that a large portion of 2nd floor and 1st floor have already collapsed and the shop is situated on ground floor. Even as

on date, partial structure of 2nd floor and partial structure of 3rd floor are in existence. The inspection report 12.05.2020 and the Panchnama as well

as photographs make it very clear that the building has already partially collapsed and remaining structure is certainly dangerous to human lives and in

those circumstances, the action has been initiated by the Indore Municipal Corporation. Section 310 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 read as

under:-

“310. Removal of buildings in dangerous state.-

If , in the opinion of the Commissioner, any building , wall, structure including under this expression any building, wall, parapet, pavement, floor, steps, railings, door

or window frames or shutters or roof or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from or resting on any building, wall, parapet or other structure, or any

tree standing thereon is in dangerous state, the Commissioner may by a notice in writing , require the occupier or owner thereof forthwith either to demolish or

remove the building, wall, structure or any such tree or cause such repairs to be made there to as he considers necessary for the public safety; and if the danger

appears to him to be imminent, he may forthwith take such steps as may be required to avert such danger, including the forcible removal without notice from such

building of all the occupiers thereof and their property.â€​

In light of the aforesaid statutory provisions of law, it can safely be gathered that the Corporation does have the power of removal of dangerous

building. In the present case, the Commissioner has already formed an opinion based upon the material and has rightly directed the building officer to

take action keeping in view Section 69 (4) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with

the impugned notice dated 30.05.2020.

In larger public interest as more than half of the portion of the building has already collapsed, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with

the order passed by the Commissioner. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.