MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA v. INDERJIT SINGH & ANR.

A so. Respondent No.1 filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing the said prop- erty. It was contended that only 14 sq. ft. area was in ex- cess of the legally sanctioned plan and he was ready to pay the compounding fee. Trial court restrained the ap- B pellant from demolition of the property in consonance with the sanctioned construction till 29.3.2001. On 14.12.2001, the Commissioner, issued notice u/ss. 269 and 270 of the Punjab Civil Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 to the first respondent to demolish the unauthorized construction. c Reference was made to issuance of the earlier notices as also the assessment of compounding fee. However, .no cause was shown and on 21.12.2001 demolition order was. issued. Respondent filed appeal which was allowed hold- ing that although the first two notices had not been served but in the. meanwhile the alleged unauthorized construe- tion was demolished. Appellant filed writ petition which was dismissed. Hence the present appe~I. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court · HELD: 1.1 The appellant in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1 ~76 was statu- torily entitled to grant of sanction for construction of struc- tures in terms of the bye laws framed by it. Subject to statutory interdict, the appellant-Corporation had the ju- risdiction to regulafrse unauthorized structure on receipt of a compounding fee. It is a matter of some concern that according to the appellant a compounding fee of Rs.1,95,374/- was determined only on the basis of a pur- ported oral request made· by the 'first respondent, which prima facie cannot be accepted. How a statutory author- ity can pass a statutory order on an oral prayer made by -an owner of the property is bey.ond anybody's compre- hensiQn·. On what basis the compounding fee was deter- miliedis also not known. [Para 11] [103-C-E] . . - . . ~

1.2 A finding of fact has been arrived at that the no- E F G H ~· J ~ ' ) j \.- . MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA v. INDERJIT SINGH & ANR. 97 ~1 tices dated 10.01.2001 and 01.02.2001 were not served on A the respondent. The said notices were also found to be absolutely vague. They did not contain the description of the property in question. Indisputably, they were issued in the name of a dead person. It is of some significance to notice that whereas in the first two notices objections was B called for and/or directions to stop construction was is- sued, by reason of the third notice, a direction was issued upon the first respondent to demolish the structures. No opportunity of hearing was granted. No notice to show cause was issued. It is on that basis that a purported c demolition order was passed which, indisputably, has been carried out. Therefore, it is not correct to contend that the notice dated 14.12.2001 was not final and by rea- son thereof merely the first respondent was asked to file his show cause. Where a noticee, fails to carry out such direction, demolition can be carried out by the Corpora- tion at the cost of the owner. In effect and substance, there- fore, an order of demolition was passed in terms of the notice dated 14.12.2001. It was a final order. Thus, an ap- peal thereagainst was maintainable. Appellant further- more acted arbitrarily insofar as it demolished the struc- tures, despite pendency of the suit. It is assumed that the order of injunction was granted for a limited period, but it is expected of a Statutory Corporation to act thereupon upon informing the court thereabout. It is not in dispute that a plan for construction of the building was sanctioned. F Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities of the appellant to categorically state as to how much area, if any, was the subject matter of unauthorized construe- tion. [Paras 13, 14 and 15] [105-A.,G] E \ -) D ---./

1.3 Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner directing demolition of the con- struction. The Appellate Court was entitled to consider as to whether the mandatory legal provisions had been complied with or not. The proviso appended to Section G H 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A 269 of the Act in no uncertain terms provides for an op portunity of hearing before an order of demolition is passed. It is imperative in character but the said provi sion had not been complied with. The action on the part of the appellant, therefore, was highly arbitrary. [Para 16] [106-8-C] B