Fashionable Now To Demolish Houses Without Due Process & Publish In Newspapers; Demolition Should Be Last Recourse : MP High Court

While granting the compensation, the Court also directed the Commissioner of Ujjain Municipal Corporation (UMC) to take disciplinary action against officials involved in fabricating a panchnama. Additionally, the petitioners were given the option to seek further compensation for their losses through a civil court.

Justice Vivek Rusia observed in the order, "As observed repeatedly by this court, it has become fashionable now for local administration and local bodies to demolish any house by drawing up proceedings without complying with the Principal of Natural Justice and publish it in the newspaper. It appears that in this case also the criminal case was registered against one of the family members of the petitioners and demolition activities were carried out."

Demolition should be the last recourse, that too after giving opportunity to owner to seek regularisation

The Court emphasized that while no one has the right to construct a house without proper permission, or if permission exists, without adhering to the regulations in the Municipal Corporation's area, demolition should be considered as a last resort. Moreover, it should only be carried out after providing the house owner with a fair chance to rectify the situation by obtaining regularization.

"...demolition should be the last recourse to be followed that too after giving a proper opportunity to the owner of the house to get it regularized."

The above ruling was delivered by the Indore bench of the High Court in a petition filed by Radha Langri seeking compensation for the demolition of her houses (house numbers 466 and 467) illegally by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ujjain, District Ujjain And Building Officer, Municipal Corporation Ujjain, District.

The Municipal Corporation submitted a reply, citing its powers of demolition under Sections 293 and 294 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and seeking protection from the obligation to pay compensation under Section 306 of the same Act.

The respondents argued that the demolished houses were constructed in violation of the Municipal Corporation Act since the petitioners had not obtained building permission beforehand.

Furthermore, the respondent's counsel contended that although a notice had been affixed, no reply was received for two months, compelling the authorities to issue a notice under Sections 307 and 406 of the Act of 1956.

The High Court on the 25th of last month, had directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to examine the record and submit the explanation before this Court.

Post which, an affidavit was filed by the Ujjain municipal commissioner informed the court that house no. 466 is registered under the ownership of Raisa Bi and lacks building permissions. However, a spot inspection on October 11, 2022, revealed that Parvez Khan had purchased the property from Raisa Bi. Consequently, a demolition notice was issued in Parvez Khan's name on October 12, 2022, under section 307 of the Municipal Act. Despite repeated attempts to serve the notice, it was refused, leading to subsequent notices on December 12 and 13, 2022. As a result, house No. 466 was partially demolished on December 13.

Similarly, the UMC affidavit stated that house no. 467 is not owned by the petitioner according to the revenue record. Instead, it is registered under the ownership of Uma, wife of Ajay, who received the demolition notice. A spot inspection on October 11, 2022, initiated a note sheet by the building officer. Following this, notices were issued under section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Despite refusals to accept the notices, further notices were issued on December 12 and 13, 2022. After which the 13.12.2022, the subject construction was partially demolished on

The Court in its order observed that the Commission Municipal Corporation Ujjain produced the note sheet prepared for the demolition of houses No.466 & 467. As per mauka panchnama dated 11.10.2022, Parvez Khan disclosed that he was an owner of the house which he purchased in the year 2016 and contrary to which there is a registered sale-deed on record in the name of the petitioner.

According to the Court, "Although they did not inform about the aforesaid sale to the Municipal Corporation by submitting a registered sale deed for mutation of their name they are residing in the said house as owner."

The Court noted, "Had the Building Officer gone to the spot he would have been informed about the name of the petitioner about the ownership. There is no such person in the name of Parvez Khan, there is no such document to show that he purchased the property only, on the basis of this so called oral information the panchnama was drawn and drastic action for demolition has been taken."

Regarding the Mouka Panchnama, the Court concluded that it was a fabricated document prepared inside the house without an actual site visit.

"Therefore, the demolition of house No.466 by serving a notice to a fictitious person Parvez Khan is a highly illegal and arbitrary action for which disciplinary action is liable to be taken against the concerned officers and employee," the court remarked.

The Court emphasized that today, all property ownership information is readily accessible at both the Sub-Registrar's office and the Municipal Corporation.

Regarding the Commissioner's explanation concerning property tax deposit details being unavailable due to server issues, the Court noted that while this information is typically accessible to the public through the server, the Municipal Corporation also maintains physical records of property tax payments. Despite this, the Court observed that there was no verification from these records regarding who was responsible for paying property tax on the house in question.

The Court noted that Rahisa Bi's name was listed as the owner without any mutation despite the absence of notice prior to demolition. Had notice been served, Rahisa Bi could have informed Municipal Corporation employees that the house had been sold to Radha Langri, the first petitioner.

Regarding house No.467, the Court remarked that in this instance, the panchnama was prepared and notice was issued to Uma in a careless manner, without any acknowledgment. Only the notice was affixed to the house before demolition commenced, indicating a lack of proper procedure and arbitrary action.

The Court highlighted that the respondent's claim that only two houses in the entire area under the Municipal Corporation of Ujjain were constructed without permission was unfounded.

"Admittedly, these petitioners purchased the constructed houses, not the open land, if there was no permission then there is a provision of compounding also for which the specific rules have been framed by the State Government. Instead of demolishing, they should have been called upon to get their construction regularized," the Court opined.

While allowing the Writ Petition, the Court directed, "1 Lakh be paid to the petitioner for the illegal demolition of their house without giving opportunity of hearing and notice within 4 weeks."

"The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation is directed to initiate disciplinary action against the officers who prepared the forged spot panchnama. The petitioners are also directed to get their construction legalized by applying for building permission / compounding before the Commissioner and the same shall be considered in accordance with the law without being prejudice by the observations made hereinabove against the Municipal Corporation," the Court further directed.