LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA versus INDERJIT SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 95
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA
A
II.
INDERJIT SINGH & ANR.
OCTOBER 1, 2008
[S.8. SINHA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ]
B
Punjab Civil Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 - ss. 269
and 270 - Notice under, for demolition of unauthorized con-
struction measuring 14 sq. ft. - Reference made to earlier
notices issued as also assessment of compounding fee on c
oral request by owner's grandson - Order of demolition though
injunction order passed restraining Authority from demolish-
ing construction - Challenge to - Held: Demolition order was
illegal - Notices issued were vague - It did not contain the
description of the property - Opportunity of hearing was not D
..
given -Authority acted arbitrarily- Injunction order was granted
though for a limited period, but a Statutory Corporation was
expected to act thereupon upon informing the court thereabout
- Since plan for construction of building was sanctioned, Au-
thorities were under obligation to state the extent of unautho-
E
rized construction and apply its mind thereto - Thus, Author-
ity directed to restore constructions for which sanction order
had been obtained.
HD-original owner of the property constructed a mar-
\
\
riage hall. It is alleged that part of the construction was
F
unauthorized. HD was issued notice dated 10.1.2001 and
1.2.2001 to show cause as to why the illegal construction
should not be demolisned, though she died in 1999. It is
alleged that HD refused to accept the first notice and the
other notice was also not served. It is the appellant's case G
-{
that the respondent-grandson of HD was aware of the
same and on his oral request a compounding fee of
Rs.1,95,374/- was fixed. Thereafter, respondent was is-
sued memorandum to pay the amount but he failed to do
95
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A so. Respondent No.1 filed suit for permanent injunction
~·
restraining the appellant from demolishing the said prop-
erty. It was contended that only 14 sq. ft. area was in ex-
cess of the legally sanctioned plan and he was ready to
pay the compounding fee. Trial court restrained the ap-
B pellant from demolition of the property in consonance with
the sanctioned construction till 29.3.2001. On 14.12.2001,
the Commissioner, issued notice u/ss. 269 and 270 of the
Punjab Civil Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 to the first
respondent to demolish the unauthorized construction.
c Reference was made to issuance of the earlier notices as
also the assessment of compounding fee. However, .no
cause was shown and on 21.12.2001 demolition order was.
issued. Respondent filed appeal which was allowed hold-
J
ing that although the first two notices had not been served
~
but in the. meanwhile the alleged unauthorized construe-
'
D
)
tion was demolished. Appellant filed writ petition which
was dismissed. Hence the present appe~I.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
· HELD: 1.1 The appellant in terms of the provisions
of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1 ~76 was statu-
torily entitled to grant of sanction for construction of struc-
tures in terms of the bye laws framed by it. Subject to
statutory interdict, the appellant-Corporation had the ju-
F
risdiction to regulafrse unauthorized structure on receipt
of a compounding fee. It is a matter of some concern that
j
according to the appellant a compounding fee of
Rs.1,95,374/- was determined only on the basis of a pur-
ported oral request made· by the 'first respondent, which
prima facie cannot be accepted. How a statutory author-
G ity can pass a statutory order on an oral prayer made by
-an owner of the property is bey.ond anybody's compre-
\.-
hensiQn·. On what basis the compounding fee was deter-
.
-
.
.
~
.
.
miliedis also not known. [Para 11] [103-C-E]
H
1.2 A finding of fact has been arrived at that the no-
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA v.
97
INDERJIT SINGH & ANR.
~1
tices dated 10.01.2001 and 01.02.2001 were not served on
A
the respondent. The said notices were also found to be
absolutely vague. They did not contain the description of
the property in question. Indisputably, they were issued
in the name of a dead person. It is of some significance to
notice that whereas in the first two notices objections was B
called for and/or directions to stop construction was is-
sued, by reason of the third notice, a direction was issued
upon the first respondent to demolish the structures. No
opportunity of hearing was granExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.