Telangana High Court
Thakur Raghunath Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 15 October, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.18240, 18255, 18256, 18274, 18308, 18349, 18398,
18401 and 18506 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to the action of the respondent authorities in relation to same property, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K. Siddhartha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents.
3. For the sake convenience, the facts stated in W.P. No.18240 of 2024 are being referred.
4. It is the common case of the petitioners that they are all tenants of the property belonging to the 6th respondent consisting of 19 small units admeasuring 70 to 75 sq. yards each with separate door numbers situated at Devi Deen Bagh, Kandaswamy Lane, Hanuman Tekdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad; that each of the house 2 units consists of a verandah, hall and a small room; that out of the 19 small units, the petitioners herein numbering to 9 (nine) are only residing therein presently on a monthly rent of Rs.400 to 500/-; and that the petitioners have been residing in the aforesaid premises for the past 70 years.
5. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the 6th respondent at an earlier point of time had evicted 2 to 3 occupants of the building by following due process; and that the 6th respondent in order to get the petitioners also evicted from the subject premises without following due process of law, had approached the respondent authorities and with the active assistance of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and with the help of Police Authorities, is intending to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house units in their occupation.
6. Petitioners contend that during all through these years of their stay in the aforesaid premises, there has been no disturbance whatsoever from any corner and on account of change in the Management, the 6th respondent is now intending to dispossess the 3 petitioners from their respective house units indirectly by using the authority of the official respondents.
7. Petitioners further contend that the 6th respondent in order to execute its nefarious plan of getting the petitioners evicted from their respective house units, had visited the petitioners' premises on 29-06-2024 along with the men and machinery i.e. bulldozers, of respondent authorities for demolishing the house units of the petitioners.
8. Petitioners also contend that the respondent authorities being public authorities and discharging public functions and duties are required to issue notice and follow due process of law, if the said authorities intend to take any action against the subject premises of the petitioners; and that the respondent authorities without issuing any notice are resorting to demolition of the house units in occupation of the petitioners thereby are trying to dispossess the petitioners therefrom, without following due process of law. Thus, it is contended that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). 4
9. Petitioners further contend that on the respondent authorities resorting to the aforesaid action on 29-06-2024, they have approached the respondent authorities on 04-07-2024 along with all the documents to prove their possession over the subject premises; that the officials of the respondent-Corporation did not consider the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners; and that the respondent authorities openly threatened that they would demolish the premises and dispossess the petitioners therefrom.
10. It is contended by the petitioners that the 6th respondent with the help of respondent authorities is seeking to claim that the subject premises is in a dilapidated and ruinous state and thus, the authorities are seeking to take action by demolishing the same, without obtaining any Structural Stability Certificate from the concerned authorities and also without issuing any notice to the petitioners, who are occupants of the subject building.
11. Petitioners also contend that as per the provisions of Section 456 of the Act, demolition is not the only solution to deal with a property which has become dilapidated or is in a ruinous state; and 5 that the respondent authorities on causing inspection, have to indicate as to whether the building can be secured by undertaking repair etc., as demolition should be the last option.
12. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 is filed.
13. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents would contend that the house units being claimed by the petitioners to be in their occupation have a common roof; that the Executive Engineer, Division-14, GHMC, Hyderabad, had carried out inspection of the subject premises on 23-09-2023, who upon such inspection had furnished a report in relation to the Structural Stability of the building, wherein it has been noted by the said authority that the subject premises is in a dilapidated and ruinous state requiring to be demolished; that the respondent authorities on receiving the aforesaid report from the Executive Engineer, have issued notice dated 30-09-2023 under Section 456 of the Act; and thus, the respondent authorities have initiated action by following the due procedure prescribed under the Act.
14. Learned Standing Counsel would further contend that on the Executive Engineer, visiting the premises, it was found that the 6 structure is built on load bearing structure with lime mortar and some of the houses have already collapsed, while in the remaining houses cracks were observed; and that the remaining houses may collapse in dampened state and condition; and thus, suggested for demolition of the same.
15. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that on the Executive Engineer of the respondent-Corporation issuing the Structural Stability report, the authorities have initially issued notice dated 30-09-2023 under Section 456 of the Act and thereafter the authorities have issued notice dated 21-02-2024 under Section 462 of the Act, whereby the owners/tenants/ occupiers were directed to vacate the dilapidated structure in premises bearing No.4-3-109 to 124 situated at Devi Deen Bagh, Hanuman Tekdi Road, Sulatan Bazar, Hyderabad within seven (7) days, failing which the owners/tenants/occupiers were informed that the authorities would take departmental action for demolishing the aforesaid building as per the provisions of the Act.
16. Learned Standing Counsel thus, submits that the respondent authorities have followed the procedure as prescribed under the Act 7 and have afforded sufficient time to the Owners and Occupants of the subject building to vacate therefrom and remove / demolish the dilapidated structure.
17. On behalf of the official respondents, it is also contended that since there were no occupants in the subject building for the authorities to serve the notices in person and each of the premises being found locked, the authorities have served the notice issued under Section 456 and 462 of the Act by affixture and as such, the petitioners cannot claim that the action of the respondent authorities is vitiated.
18. On behalf of respondent No.6, it is contended that while the petitioners are claiming to be tenants of the subject premises, as a matter of fact, no person is residing in the said property, since a part of the said building has already collapsed.
19. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondent would further contend that though the petitioners are claiming themselves to be tenants by paying rents of Rs.400 to Rs.500/- per month in respect of each of the unit in their possession, no rents are 8 also paid nor the petitioners have placed before this Court any material to substantiate the above said claim.
20. The unofficial respondent would further contend that not being in occupation of the subject building, the petitioners are only trying to lay a claim to the property in order to coerce the 6th respondent to arrive at a settlement with them.
21. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
22. While the petitioners claim of being tenants of the subject property, no material is placed before this Court to establish the factum of subsistence of tenancy by paying rents to the unofficial respondent.
23. Though the petitioners contend that no notice has been issued to them as Occupiers with regard to alleged inspection stated to have been undertaken by the Executive Engineer on 23-09-2023 pursuant to which it is claimed that a report having been submitted noting therein that the subject property may collapse in dampened state and condition and thus it needs to be demolished, as the respondents claim that the subject premises is locked and since the un-official respondent claims that none of the petitioners are 9 actually residing therein, this Court in order to give a quietus to the issue, by order dated 12-07-2024 directed that the subject premises be inspected by the team of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad (JNTUH) to ascertain the structural stability.
24. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the Engineers of Industrial Consultancy Services (ICS) of JNTUH have submitted their report under the cover of letter dated 24-07-2024.
25. The said report as furnished by the Engineers of ICS of JNTUH indicates that the authorities of JNTUH have caused inspection of the subject building on 20-07-2024 and upon causing the inspection, have furnished a Structural Stability report of the building.
26. A reading of the report as furnished by the Engineers of ICS of JNTUH, shows that there are three independent structures in the subject premises and the first structure consists of 11 portions with a common roof. The report furnished by the Engineers of ICS of JNTUH would further indicate that the authorities having observed dampness in the load bearing walls, water leaking from the slab of the building in front of two rooms and roots of the trees have come 10 down from the slab on to the walls in respect of premises bearing Municipal No.4-3-109 covered by W.P. No.18420 of 2024. The report also further details of the authorities noticing cracks in the load bearing walls and also partial collapse of roof slab.
27. The Engineers of ICS of JNTUH by examining each of the house units in the aforesaid premises, have finally concluded that the roof of the first floor had already collapsed at some places and that the remaining portion of the slab may collapse without any further warning. Hence, it had suggested to demolish the structure to prevent loss of human life.
28. Similarly, in respect of premises No.4-6-121/1 and 4-3-124, in the report it is stated that the structure is also in a dilapidated condition as the load bearing walls are in dampened state and may collapse without any warning. Thus, by the report, the Engineers of ICS of JNTUH having concluding as above, suggested for demolition of the structure.
29. The aforesaid report as submitted by the Engineers of Industrial Consultancy Services of JNTUH is taken on record. 11
30. Though, petitioners claim that the structure is not in a dilapidated or ruinous state for the respondent authorities to take any action there against in terms of Section 456 of the Act, however, as the Expert Report furnished by the Engineers of Industrial Consultancy Services of JNTUH authority clearly indicates that the subject building / structure is in a dilapidated condition and requiring to be demolished, this Court is of the view that the opinion given by the Expert cannot be replaced either with that of this Court or that of the petitioners.
31. It is trite law that the credence has to be given to the opinion of the Experts inasmuch as the Courts do not have the expertise to deal with such technical aspects more so, when the same relates to stability of a structure, which in the event of any untoward situation taking place may result in human loss. This Court under identical set of facts in Smt. Pushpalata Kanodia vs State Of Telangana 1, had observed as under:
"...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 1 Common order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.Nos. 30821 of 2018, 10580 & 17583 of 2019 and 14765 of 2020 12 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 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 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."
(emphasis supplied)
32. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Andheri Purab Paschim Cooperative Housing Society 13 Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors 2, under identical circumstances had held that the Writ Court in its limited jurisdiction could not decide the structural stability of a building. It was further held that as the Courts are not structure engineers, they could not substitute their opinion in a report given by technical experts. On the matter being carried in appeal, the aforesaid view was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 in S.L.P.(C). No. 21184 of 2023 3.
33. Thus, as the report of the Engineers of Industrial Consultancy Services of JNTUH clearly indicates the part of the building having collapsed and the remaining part of the building with a common roof being unfit for habitation, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioners of the unofficial respondent seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject premises forcibly without following due process of law, cannot be accepted as a valid ground to restrain the respondent authorities from taking further action pursuant to the notice issued under Section 456 of the Act 2 2024(1)ABR759 : 2023(5)BomCR515 : MANU/MH/3663/2023 3 MANU/SCOR/117437/2023 14 and also notice issued under Section 462 of the Act, whereby the petitioners were directed to be evicted from the subject premises.
34. Thus, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions as filed are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed.
35. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
36. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date : 15-10-2024 Vsv