Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the respondent nos.3A, 3B and 4 claim ownership rights in the premises standing on Plot No. 29, Municipal House No. 36, Great Nag Road, Nagpur which is in occupation of the petitioners as tenants. For the reason that the structure in question was quite dilapidated requiring the same to be pulled down, the owners on 01.11.2020 made a complaint to the Municipal Authorities requesting it to pull down the same in accordance with law. On receiving the aforesaid complaint, the Municipal Corporation on 22.01.2021 called upon the owners to submit a Structural Audit Report from a recognized Auditor from the panel of Structural Auditors maintained by the Municipal Corporation to enable it to consider the complaint of the owners. The owners on 10.02.2021 obtained a Structural Audit Report of the premises in question from 4 th D Design Structural Designer, a Structural Consultant. Under the said report, it was recommended that the structure ought to be demolished at the earliest in the interest of property and human life. The owners on 16.02.2021 forwarded this report to the concerned department of the Municipal Corporation. The WP 2544-21 4 Judgment Municipal Authorities after considering the said report and after inspecting the premises issued the notice dated 05.03.2021 under Section 264(1) of the Act of 1949 to the owners as well as the petitioners-occupants stating therein that within a period of seven days of receiving the said notice, the structure should be pulled down. Since no further action was taken in the matter, the Municipal Corporation on 30.06.2021 made a request for grant of police protection to undertake demolition of the structure. A similar request was also made by the owners on 16.09.2021. On 27.10.2021 the Municipal Authorities issued another communication to the owners as well as the occupiers stating therein that when the site was inspected on 26.10.2021 it was noticed that half of the said structure had been pulled down while the remaining half structure which was in a dilapidated condition was found standing. The remaining structure was also directed to be pulled down. Some of the petitioners on 21.12.2021 issued a communication to the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation stating therein that another Structural Audit Report dated 08.03.2021 submitted by M.R. Shelote and Associates had been obtained by them which did not require the entire structure to be pulled down. A request was made to take necessary action in that regard and prevent the pulling down of the said structure. The Mayor accordingly called for necessary reports in that regard from the concerned department. On there being two contradictory reports with it, the Municipal Authorities called for another Structural Audit Report from the Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur (for short, 'VNIT') being an independent authority. After the expenses towards such report were paid by the owners, the VNIT submitted its report dated 28.07.2022. As per the said WP 2544-21 5 Judgment report, it was opined that the premises were in a dilapidated condition having been constructed about sixty five years ago and hence, it was recommended that the same be demolished at the earliest. It is in this backdrop that the challenge to the notice dated 05.03.2021 has been considered.

5. Shri Jemini Kasat, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation supported the impugned notice dated 05.03.2021. According to him after following the prescribed procedure, action under Section 264 of the Act of 1949 was taken. Initially notice was issued to the owners of the building to have the same inspected by a Structural Auditor. After the audit report was submitted by the owners the site was again inspected and after due application of mind, the Designated Officer directed issuance of the notice under Section 264 of the Act of 1949 on 05.03.2021. According to him, if the entire structure was in ruinous condition, notice under Section 264(1) of the Act of 1949 could be issued. However, if it was possible to undertake repairs at the said structure then steps could be taken under Section 264(2) of the Act of 1949. It was then submitted that in the light of the subsequent report submitted by the WP 2544-21 8 Judgment petitioners, it was decided to obtain a fresh Structural Audit Report from an independent agency. Such report was accordingly obtained from the VNIT which clearly opined that the structure in question was liable to be demolished considering its dilapidated nature. There was no reason to question the action taken by the Municipal Corporation since all steps were taken bona fide and in accordance with law. It was undisputed that the structure was about sixty five years old and most of the petitioners except three had vacated the same. Hence, no interference at the instance of the petitioners was called for.

Shri Nitin Khamborkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3A, 3B and 4-Owners supported the stand taken by the Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that after the initial complaint was made by the owners they were directed to obtain a Structural Audit Report. The same was accordingly obtained and in view of the recommendation to demolish the structure, the impugned notice came to be issued. The VNIT as an independent agency had also opined that the entire structure was dilapidated and was thus liable to be pulled down. There was no question of the respondents acting against the interest of the petitioners since it was undisputed that the entire structure was in a dilapidated condition. The tenancy rights of the parties, if any, would be protected as per law. Since majority of the petitioners had vacated the premises, there was no legal justification in entertaining the writ petition at the behest of only three occupants. He too submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

8. Coming to the challenge as raised to the notice dated 05.03.2021 issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 264(1) of the Act of 1949, we find that initially the land owners obtained a report of the Structural Auditor dated 10.02.2021. After the said report of the Structural Auditor was submitted to the Municipal Corporation, an inspection was undertaken by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Junior Engineer as well as Civil Engineering Assistant on 22.02.2021. During the course of such inspection they found that the structure was more than sixty five years old and it was in a ruinous condition. The said Officers noted their observations in the file and the entire material was placed before the Designated Officer. The Designated Officer thereafter inspected the structure in question on 04.03.2021 alongwith the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Junior Engineer and the Civil Engineering Assistant. After recording his satisfaction, the notice dated 05.03.2021 under Section 264(1) of the Act of 1949 came to be issued by the Designated Officer. Thereafter steps were sought to be taken by the Municipal Corporation for seeking police protection and on 27.10.2021 half portion of the dilapidated structure came to be demolished. In the meanwhile some of petitioners who continued in occupation of the portion of the said premises issued a communication on 21.12.2021 alongwith the report of the Structural Auditor which according to WP 2544-21 13 Judgment them indicated that the remaining structure was not liable to be pulled down and repairs could be carried out. In the light of these two reports with the Corporation, the Designated Officer on 10.03.2022 directed an independent Structural Audit Report to be obtained from VNIT. After the owners paid the requisite amount for carrying out the Structural Audit the structure was inspected by the team of the VNIT and thereafter on 28.07.2022 it submitted its report recommending demolition of the remaining structure since it was in a dangerous and ruinous condition.