Anil vs Indore Municipal Corporation And Others

Heard.

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against

the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.6.2020 dismissing the Writ Petition No.7826/2020.

The appellant is a tenant in the shop situated at House No.42-43, Sarafa Bazar, Indore. A notice dated 30.5.2020 was issued in respect of demolition

of the building in which appellant’s shop is located on the ground that the building was in dilapidated condition and the first floor and second floor

had partially collapsed. The appellant had come up in the writ petition seeking protection of the Court.

A reply was filed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation taking the stand that it was an old building and second and third floor of the building as also

the front portion have already collapsed and there was danger of collapse of the remaining building at any time. Further plea was taken that the

building is in a crowded place and is in dangerous shape.

Learned Single Judge after examining the matter has dismissed the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned notice was in respect of the first floor and second floor only, no physical inspection

was done and no opportunity of hearing has been given. He has also placed reliance upon the order of this Court in the case of Dharmendra and

others Vs. Dhananjay Sharma and others dated 10.5.2019 passed in WA No.294/2019.

Learned counsel for the respondents has informed this Court that the entire building has already been demolished, therefore, nothing survives in this

appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The learned Single Judge has duly considered the respective stand of the parties and while dismissing the writ petition has held that:-

“12. 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 cer-tainly dangerous to human lives and in those circumstances, the action has

been initiated by the Indore Municipal Corpor-ation. 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 build-ing , wall, structure including under this expression any building, wall, parapet, pavement, floor, steps, railings,

door or window frames or shutters or roof or other struc-ture 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 Commis-sioner 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. Muni-cipal 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, dis-missed.â€​

The argument of counsel for the appellant that notice dated 30.5.2020 was in respect of first floor and second floor only, is contrary to his own plea in

the writ petition that the notice was for demolishing the appellant’s shop. The reply of the respondent filed in the writ petition reveals that the

inspection was done, Panchnama was prepared wherein the building was found to be in dilapidated condition and the provisions contained in Section

310 of the Act were duly complied with. In view of this, the appellant cannot be granted any benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of

Dharmendra (supra).

Even otherwise, learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation on instructions has informed that demolition has already taken place.

Hence we do not find any merit in this writ appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.