Bhopal: The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh each to two petitioners seeking compensation and disciplinary action, stating that their houses were wrongly demolished by municipal authorities in Ujjain.
In his order dated 1 February, the Indore bench of justice Vivek Rusia, said: “As observed by this court, it has become fashionable now for local administration and local bodies to demolish any house by drawing up proceeding without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice and publish it in the newspaper.”
Justice Rusia not only gave compensation but also ordered the Commissioner of Ujjain Municipal Corporation (UMC) to initiate disciplinary action against officials for preparing a forged panchnama, while giving the liberty to the petitioner to approach a civil court to claim actual compensation for their losses.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Radha Langri, wife of Rahul Langri, and his mother Vimla Gurjar, on 6 January, 2023. In their petition, the two stated that house nos 467 and 556, located in Ujjain’s Sandipani Nagar, were purchased by Radha in 2019 and 2020, while Vimla had purchased house nos 525, 526 and 527 in the same locality. Rahul Nagri had purchased house no. 466 in the same locality.
The petitioners stated that Vimla was served demolition notices for house nos 525, 526 and 527. After Vimla approached civil court against the demolition on 12 December, 2022, a status quo was granted the same day.
According to Radha’s petition, the next day on 13 December, though, the Ujjain municipal commissioner and building officer of Zone 5 in UMC demolished house nos 466 and 467, owned by Rahul and his wife Radha, respectively, without giving any notice.
UMC authorities say that the two houses were found to have been in violation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
Speaking to ThePrint, Ujjain Municipal Commissioner Ashish Pathak said, “Since I have recently taken charge as the commissioner, I’m not aware of the nitty-gritties of the case. We have received the order and our legal team is reviewing it. Once we have a clear response, we will proceed accordingly and take the necessary legal course.”
Rishi Tiwari, advocate representing the UMC stated to the court as per the order copy that, “No building permissions were obtained before the constructions of the said houses and therefore the same has been rightfully demolished.”
He added that a notice was issued on 12 October, 2022, but no reply was filed until two months later, and that the petitioners were not recorded as the owners of the said houses. He also stated that house nos 525, 526 and 527 (owned by Vimla) have also been constructed without permissions and are an “encroachment” on the land. Subsequently, a notice under section 307 of the Municipal Act was served.
‘Did not comply with principles of natural justice’
After the matter reached the Indore court in 2023, it asked the UMC, through an order on 24 January 2024, to examine the property tax records and submit an application before the court.
On 1 February, 2024, an affidavit filed by the Ujjain municipal commissioner before the court stated that house no. 466 is registered under the ownership of Raisa Bi and that there is no record of building permissions. On 11 October, 2022, a spot inspection was carried out during which it was found that the said house had been purchased by Parvez Khan from Raisa Bi.
Subsequently, a panchnama was made and a demolition notice was issued on 12 October, 2022, as per section 307 of the Municipal Act in the name of Parvez Khan. After refusal to accept the notice, a second notice was issued on 12 December, 2022, followed by a third notice on 13 December, 2022.
On 13 December, house No 466 was partially demolished.
The UMC affidavit further stated, “Likewise, house no 467 is not recorded in the ownership of the petitioner, as per the revenue record. It is recorded under the ownership of Uma, wife of Ajay, to whom the notice was issued. On 11 October, 2022, a spot inspection was done and a note sheet was initiated by the building officer. A notice was issued under section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and on refusal to accept the notice, a second notice was issued on 12 December, 2022, and a third notice on 13 December, 2022, after which the house was partially demolished.”
Highlighting the discrepancy, the high court observed that while in the panchnama the municipal authorities stated that Parvez Khan was the owner of the house, the sale deed on record showed the petitioner as the owner.
The court further pointed out that the petitioners had been staying in the same house and had the building officer visited the spot, he would have been informed about the petitioner’s ownership.
Taking a stern view of the matter, the court stated, “It appears that mauka panchnama is a concocted document that was prepared in the house without going to the spot. Therefore, the demolition of house No. 466 by 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 concerned official and employee (sic).”
The court also remarked on the municipal commissioner’s failure to go through property tax records since “the server was down” and to check the physical copies of the same.
Similar discrepancies were observed in relation to house no. 467. The notice was issued under one Uma Jatav’s name, though the house had been purchased by petitioner No. 2.
The court thereby stated, “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. Admittedly, these petitioners purchased the constructed houses, not the open land, if there was no permission then there is a provision of compounding also for which the specific rules have been framed by the State Government. Instead of demolishing, they should have been called upon to get their construction regularized (sic).”
Tehzeeb Khan, the advocate representing the petitioner, while speaking to ThePrint, said, “This is an important order and I want to thank the court for saying it so firmly. My clients have been given justice and I hope the Municipal Authorities will do the needful.”
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: MP CM’s secretariat gets a makeover — 5 IAS officers with IIM-IIT-LSE credentials join Mohan Yadav