It’s become fashionable to demolish homes without complying with principles of natural justice: MP High Court

It’s become fashionable to demolish homes without complying with principles of natural justice: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that it “has become fashionable” for local administrations to demolish any house without “complying with the Principal of Natural Justice” while granting compensation to two people whose homes were demolished by the Ujjain Municipal Corporation.

Ujjain residents Radha Langri and Vimla Gurjar filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming compensation. While Langri alleged the Ujjain Municipal Corporation demolished two of her houses without issuing any notice, Gurjar was served a demolition notice and moved the High Court which granted her a stay soon after.

In his order passed on February 1, Justice Vivek Rusia granted compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioners. Justice Rusia noted, “It has become fashionable now for local administration and local bodies to demolish any house by drawing up proceedings without complying with the Principal of Natural Justice and publish it in the newspaper.”

“It appears that in this case also the criminal case was registered against one of the family members of the petitioners and demolition activities were carried out. It is not the case of the respondent that in the entire area under the Municipal Corporation Ujjain, these are the only two houses that are constructed without permission to be demolished,” the court said.

The Ujjain civic body informed the court the houses were “raised in violation of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act” as “no building permission was obtained by the petitioners before constructing the houses in question, therefore, the same has rightly been demolished”.

The corporation said the petitioners were not recorded as owners of the houses in the revenue records. They were registered in the name of other people who were served notices, but they refused to accept them, following which the demolitions were subsequently carried out, it added.

The court perused a mauka panchnama, a note sheet prepared by the building inspector, in Langri’s case and said it appeared to be a “concocted document that was prepared in the house without going to the spot.” The court noted that one Parvez Khan has been recorded as the owner of the house.

The court said, “Had the Building Officer gone to the spot he would have been informed about the name of the petitioner about the ownership…There is no such person in the name of Parvez Khan, there is no such document to show that he purchased the property. Only, on the basis of this so-called oral information, the panchnama was drawn and drastic action for demolition has been taken.”

“Serving a notice to a fictitious person Parvez Khan is a highly illegal and arbitrary action for which disciplinary action is liable to be taken” against the officers concerned, said the court.

The court said it is “correct that no person has a right to construct the house without building permission or if the building permission is there then no construction is permissible” but in either case “demolition should be the last recourse to be followed that too after giving a proper opportunity to the owner of the house to get it regularised”.

The court has directed the Commissioner, Ujjain Municipal Corporation, “to initiate disciplinary action against the officers who prepared the forged spot panchnama”.

For the latest news from across India, Political updates, Explainers, Sports News, Opinion, Entertainment Updates and more Top News, visit Indian Express. Subscribe to our award-winning Newsletter Download our App here Android & iOS