Saligram v. Municipal Corporation, Shimla & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 23 Jul 2026
- Bench
- JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA WHETHER
Outcome
Disposed of
law, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation has placed on record copy of notices dated 06.07.2026 and 20.07.2026 issued to respondent No.2. In terms of the notices, the site in question was inspected by the concerned official; During inspection, it was found that…
- Para 55. Since respondent No.1 has already cognizance of the representation of the petitioner and is already proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to ensure that further action in furtherance of the notices…
Judgment
Mr. Vinod Sharma and Ms. Mamta Bhatwan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondent No.1, which is waived by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, the pleadings, stand of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for from the appearing respondent. Notice is also not required to be issued to respondent No.2. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2
Petitioner has alleged that respondent No.2 has been carrying out unauthorized construction by installing iron angle steel structure on the roof of fourth floor of his building located at Khasra No.3863, Patwar Circle Patyog, Tehsil Shimla (Urban), District Shimla. The said building is stated to be adjoining to petitioner’s owned building. Petitioner has also alleged infringement of his easementry rights by the aforesaid alleged unauthorized construction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner preferred a complaint dated
03.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Shimla, highlighting the violations allegedly being committed by respondent No.2 and consequent danger to his house, however, no action has been taken by respondent No.1.
At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation has placed on record copy of notices dated 06.07.2026 and 20.07.2026 issued to respondent No.2. In terms of the notices, the site in question was inspected by the concerned official; During inspection, it was found that an iron angle steel structure has been unauthorizedly erected by respondent No.2 on the fourth storey of the existing building without obtaining prior 3 permission from the competent authority. Accordingly, notice under Section 254(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (in short ‘the Act’) was issued to respondent No.2 on 06.07.2026, directing him to the unauthorized construction, however, unauthorized construction was not stopped. This led respondent No.1-Corporation issue notice dated
20.07.2026, directing respondent No.2 to produce the building sanction or approved building plan with respect to the construction being carried out by him at the site. Failure to do so is to entail further action in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Operative part
Since respondent No.1 has already cognizance of the representation of the petitioner and is already proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to ensure that further action in furtherance of the notices dated 06.07.2026 and 20.07.2026 is promptly taken in accordance with law after hearing the version of respondent No.2. It shall be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law at an appropriate stage, in case necessity so arises in future. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to seek enforcement of his 4 easementry rights in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties including respondent No.2 are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. July 23, 2026 Mukesh Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: law, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 — s. 254(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 23 Jul 2026. The bench was JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA WHETHER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.