Skip to content


Ram Avtar Vs. Municipal Corporation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Appeal No. 45 of 1968
Judge
Reported in1977RLR311
ActsDelhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 343(1)
AppellantRam Avtar
RespondentMunicipal Corporation
Advocates: D.P. Gupta and; C.B. Lal, Advs
Excerpt:
- .....again started repairs he then received demolition notice dt. 2-6-67. after appeal was dismissed by district judge, he moved high court. high court relying upon : air1965sc913 , allowed him to raise question of law for the first time. paras 5 & 6 of the judgment are :- (2) in case there is breach of any of the obligations enumerated in the opening part of section 343 (i), the commissioner can, in addition to any other action that may be taken under the act, make an order directing that the concerned erection of work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance it may have been commenced or may be in any stage of completion. such an order directing demolition is to provide that demolition has to take place within a period which may not be less than five days and more than fifteen.....
Judgment:

Prakash Narain, J.

(1) Petitioner owned a shop by purchase and on 27.3.67 he made an application for permission to replace the roof and repair internal walls. On getting no reply, petitioner started repair. He than received a show cause notice which he replied on 24-4-67. When he did not get reply for some time he again started repairs He then received demolition notice dt. 2-6-67. After appeal was dismissed by District Judge, he moved High Court. High Court relying upon : AIR1965SC913 , allowed him to raise question of law for the first time. Paras 5 & 6 of the judgment are :-

(2) In case there is breach of any of the obligations enumerated in the opening part of section 343 (I), the Commissioner can, in addition to any other action that may be taken under the Act, make an order directing that the concerned erection of work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance it may have been commenced or may be in any stage of completion. Such an order directing demolition is to provide that demolition has to take place within a period which may not be less than five days and more than fifteen days from the date on which a copy of the order of demolition with a brief statement of the reasons thereforee has been delivered to the concerned person. It is clear that a copy of the said order, according to the statutory requirements of section 343 (I) has to have with it a brief statement of reasons for passing the order. Why is that to be done It is to be done in order to mention the justidication for the order of demolition. The brief statement will be containing the reason for passing the order. Sub-section (2) in section 343 provides that the person aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (I) may prefer an appeal against that order, which may be filed in the court of the District Judge of Delhi. The brief statement of reasons will essentially provide the material which may be probed into in order to formulate the grounds of appeal.

(3) We are of the view that an order of demolition must of necessity be accompanied by a brief statement of reasons thereforee. In this case the order of demolition is not accompanied by any brief statement containing reasons for passing the order. We conclude that the order of demolition does not fulfill the imperative obligations imposed by section 343 (1) of the Act. We, accordingly, accept the petition, discharge the judgment of the District Judge and quash the order of demolition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //