Telangana High Court
Smt. Pushpalata Kanodia vs State Of Telangana Rep. By Principal ... on 4 February, 2021
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos. 30821 of 2018, 10580 & 17583 of 2019
AND 14765 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
With the consent of all the parties, these four writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order, as the parties are common and the issue involved is one and the same.
The property involved in all these writ petitions is the building bearing Municipal No. 4-1-1229 (Gulshan Manzil), Boggulkunta, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'). There are two sets of writ petitions, namely (i) W.P. Nos. 30821 of 2018 & 10580 of 2019; (ii) W.P. Nos. 17583 of 2019 and 14765 of 2020. While the first set of writ petitions is filed by the same tenant seeking a direction to the GHMC officials not to demolish the subject property, the second set of writ petitions is filed by the co-owners of the subject property seeking a direction to the official respondents to carry out demolition process. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as 'the owners' and 'the tenant'.
The contention of the owners is that they have inherited the subject property from their ancestors under a registered settlement deed. By the time of purchase of the subject property by their ancestors on 10.02.1948, the subject property was 40 years old. In the year 1972, the middle portion of the subject property was given on lease to one Susheel Kumar Kanodia, the husband of the tenant, on monthly rent of Rs.400/-. After the expiry of Susheel Kumar Kanodia, his wife, the tenant, continued to be in occupation of the subject property. In the year 1987, certain portion of the 2 roof had collapsed causing serious injuries to the inmates of the building. Since the subject property is in dilapidated condition, the owners submitted a representation as early as on 26.08.1989 to the municipal authorities with a request to take necessary steps for its demolition. Even the Commissioner of GHMC had issued proceedings on 10.06.2003 directing the Engineering and Town Planning Wings to identify the dangerous/dilapidated structures and issue notices to its owners/occupiers and to take action for demolition of the same. Subsequently, a notice under Section 459 of GHMC Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 15.07.2013 inviting objections from the owners/occupiers as to why the structures should not be demolished. On 26.08.2018, the owners had approached the Industrial Consultancy Services, JNTUH, College of Engineering, for a structural stability report, by paying necessary fee. The JNTUH submitted its Structural Stability Report on 06.05.2019 with a finding that the building in present condition is not structurally safe and stable for habitation and the roof slab may collapse at any time due to rains. Basing on the said Report, the owners made representations to the official respondents on 09.05.2019/01.07.2019, followed by a legal notice on 16.07.2019. As a result, on 21.05.2019, the official respondents have issued a notice under Section 456 of the Act, requesting the owners/tenants to vacate the premises. However, so far, the demolition process has not taken place. Aggrieved by the inaction of the official respondents in not taking further steps to demolish the dilapidated structures, the owners of the subject property have filed W.P. Nos. 17583 of 2019 and 14765 of 2020, 3 whereas, challenging the notice dated 21.05.2019, the tenant has filed W.P. No. 10580 of 2019.
As a matter of fact, when the owners made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad on 18.07.2018, to depute police personnel for conducting panchanama of the subject property, for the purpose of inspection by the Technical Committee of JNTUH, the tenant filed W.P. No. 30821 of 2018 seeking a direction to the official respondents not to demolish the structures/vacate her from the subject property. On 28.08.2018, this Court, while granting the status quo orders, made it clear that the said orders would not preclude the respondents from issuing notices and taking action in accordance with law. Even in W.P. No. 10580 of 2019, initially, this Court had granted interim direction on 29.05.2019, but subsequently, the same was not extended.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
Although the learned counsel appearing for the tenant has raised several contentions, it is not in dispute that the subject property is sufficiently old and the same is in dilapidated condition. Even the Industrial Consultancy Services, JNTUH, College of Engineering, Hyderabad, had inspected the subject property and submitted a Structural Stability Report on 06.05.2019 with regard to the condition of the property. The relevant portion of the Report reads thus:-
"Based upon our visual observations, quality of the existing building materials like steel, wood & bricks and prevailing conditions of the various structural elements in the building, it is concluded that building in the present condition is not structurally safe & stable 4 for habitation and the roof slab may collapse at any time due to rains".
Thus, the experts' committee of the JNTUH, had clearly opined that the subject property is not safe for habitation and is in an advanced stage of deterioration. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that the rapacious owners/landlords, in connivance with venal municipal officers, were issuing Section 456 pull-down notices almost indiscriminately. Even though the tenant has seriously disputed the Structural Stability Report of the JNTUH on the ground that the team from JNTUH did not visit the spot and they have given the Report only on the basis of the photos, a reading of the Report reveals that the experts' team of JNTUH has conducted the spot inspection after putting all the stakeholders on notice and submitted its Report. The photos filed by the owners clearly show that the building is not only in a dilapidated condition, but some of the portions of the building have already collapsed due to vagaries of nature. The Report of the JNTUH is not rebutted by the tenant by adducing any other cogent and convincing evidence by placing on record a contra report from an expert body, except filing photos of the interior parts of the portion which is in possession of the tenant no other document is filed to substantiate the claim of the tenant to buttress her contention that the building is structurally safe, strong and stable. When it is an admitted fact that the building is almost more than 110 years old, that some of the portions have already collapsed and there is a report prepared by an expert body clearly stating that the building is not structurally strong, stable and safe for habitation, this Court cannot take a contra decision. In this particular case, the wing of JNTUH has 5 constituted an expert body of engineers, having the requisite experience and expertise to give a structural stability report in respect of the subject property. The Report of the JNTUH is by a body of experts and therefore, due credence and weightage has to be given to the said Report. The Report is prepared taking into account various technical and non-technical parameters, spot inspection etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the Courts should refrain from going into areas which are within the exclusive domain of the technical experts and should not set aside the reports or brush them aside without adequate material or proof merely on the basis of the apprehension expressed by the parties.
Once there is a specific report of the experts to the effect that a building is in dilapidated condition and not fit for habitation, no notice is again required to be given to the inmates thereof. In order to avoid any untoward incident and to avoid imminent risk to the inmates of the building, the official respondents are duty bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act duly taking into account the structural stability Report. Merely because a portion of building is in better condition or habitable, the process of demolition cannot be stalled. A small portion of the building cannot be allowed to be stand, when the entire structure needs to be pulled down. The parties should also understand that their lives are more important than whatever commercial activity they are carrying on in the said dilapidated building. Hence, no ground is made out by the tenant to stall the demolition process of the subject property more particularly when the building is in an advanced stage of ruin and in a dilapidated condition. The fear of 6 the tenant that her rights would be harmed if the building was demolished is unfounded as the tenant is always at liberty to agitate her tenancy rights, if any, before the appropriate civil court. this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions filed by the tenant which warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the forgoing reasons, the writ petitions, filed by the owners, namely W.P. Nos. 17583 of 2019 and 14765 of 2020 are, hereby, allowed and the official respondents are directed to take necessary action for demolition of the building duly taking into account the Report submitted by the JNTUH. Consequently, the writ petitions, filed by the tenant, namely W.P. Nos. 30821 of 2018 and 10580 of 2019 are, hereby, dismissed.
Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Tsr 04-02-2021.