Demolition of Houses Should be ‘Last Recourse’: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while pulling up the authorities for not following due procedure, awarded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner whose houses were illegally demolished by the Ujjain Municipal Corporation (UMC).

According to a report by Live Law, the court also directed the Commissioner of UMC to take disciplinary action against officials involved in fabricating a panchnama. The petitioners also have been given the option to seek more compensation for their losses through a civil court.

While criticising the UMC authorities for the illegal action, according to Live Law, Justice Vivek Rusia noted in the order: “As observed repeatedly by this court, 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.”

The court highlighted that while no one has the right to construct a house without proper permission or without adhering to the regulations, demolition should be considered a “last resort”. It emphasised that the opportunity to avail the fair chance to rectify the situation by obtaining regularisation should precede the demolition action.

The Order was delivered by the Indore Bench of the High Court after one Radha Langri petitioned the court after her houses (466 and 467) were demolished without compensation by the Municipal Corporation. According to the report, UMC argued that the demolitions were justified due to unauthorised construction under the Municipal Corporation Act. However, discrepancies emerged regarding ownership claims. The UMC stated one house was owned by Parvez Khan, not Radha, and the other was registered under one Uma. Yet, the Court found inconsistencies, such as ownership attributed to Parvez Khan despite official records indicating that the owner of house no. 466 was listed as Raisa Bi in the official records. The Court then questioned why the panchnama carried false information and a notice was not served to the rightful owner of the house.

According to the report, the Court noted, "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."