SHIV KUMAR CHADHA versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 04-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SHIV KUMAR CHADHA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. 
MAY 4, 1993 
[M.N. VENKA TACHALIAH, CJ., P.B. SA WANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 9-Civil Court's jurisdiction- Ouster when. 
De//Ji Municipal Corporation Act, 195: 
Sections 343,347£- Suits in connection with orders passed or proceedings 
initiated for demolitio_n of constructions-Maintainability of-Directions of Su-
preme Court. 
Co~e of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 39, Rule 3, proviso -Temporary injunction-Granting 
of-When-Court's duty-Reasons for grant of injunction-Mandatory to 
r.et'ord-Supreme Court's dirt:ctions. 
, ln· respect of some private dispute between two neighbours a writ 
application was filed in the High Court. On the material produced in the case 
E 
.. it was treated as a Public Interest Litigation and the High Court was to find 
out a solution in respect of unauthorised constructions alleged to have been 
made by different owners/occupiers/builders without sanctioned plans or by 
making deviations from the sanctioned plans. The High Court wanted to 
ensure that such unauthorised constructions were not perpetuated on the 
F 
basis of interim orders of injunction passed by the Civil Courts. 
The High Court disposed of the petition holding that the owners/ 
occupiers/builders were to be given liberty to file fresh building plans and that 
the Municipal Corporation was to examine such building plans in accordance 
with law and that the Corporation was to seal and to demolish those 
G 
constructions which were beyond the compoundable limits. The High Court 
also directed that no civil suit would be entertained by any Court in Delhi in 
respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Co_rporation with 
regard to the sealing and/or demolition of any building or any part thereof. 
The High Court directed tUrther that person aggrieved by an order of sealing 
or demolition had the right to file an.a_ppeal to ~he Appellate Tribunal under 
H 
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 
522 
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. 
523 
Against the High Court's order. 'he present appeals were fded by special 
A 
leave. 
On the question, "whether the jurisdiction of the Court has been 
statutorily barred in respect of suits in connection with the orders passed or 
proceedings initiated for demolition of constructions, which have been made 
B 
without sanction or by deviating from the sanctioned plans", allowing the 
appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. With the increase in the number of taxing statutes, welfare 
legislations and enactments to protect a class of citizens, a trend can be noticed 
that most of such legislations confer decision making powers on various C 
authorities and they seek to limit or exclude Court's power to review those 
decisions. T.he result is that the power of the Court under section 9 of the Code 
is being denuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of 
liabilities created or rights conferred. The ouster of the jurisdiction of the 
Court is upheld on the finding that the rights or liabilities in question had been 
created by th•i! Act in question and remedy provided therein was adequate. D 
(S3S-D·F) 
1.2. The situation will be different w~ere a statute purports to curb and 
curtail a pre-existing common law right and purports to oust the jurisdiction 
of the Court so far remedy against the orders passed under such statute are E 
concerned. In such cases, the courts have to be more vigilant, while examining 
the question as to whether an adequate redressal machinery has been 
provided, before which the person aggrieved may agitate his grievance. 
(53S·G) 
1.3. In spite ofthe bar placed on the power of the Court, orders passed 
F 
under such statutes can be examined on "jurisdictional question". A suit will 
be_ rqaintainable. (536-F) 
Karikara Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu, AIR 1974 SC 
1069; Desika Charyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, -AIR 1964 SC 807; PYX 
Granite Co. Led. v. Minislry of Housing and weal and Government, 1960 A.C. 
G 
260 and Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, 19692AC147, 
relied on. 
Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, [1859] 6 
H 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
C.B. (N.S.) 336; Neville v. London "Express" Newspaper limited. [1919) 
Appeal Cases 368; Baraclough v. Brown, [1897) Appeal Cases 615; Secretary 
of State v. Mask & Co., AIR 1940 P.C. 105; Finn Seth Radha Kishan v. 
Administ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.