SITARAM KHANDELWAL Vs. RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are tenants of the private respondent, challenged the letter No. 908 dated 15.3.2012 issued by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, whereunder permission has been accorded under Section 387(7) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 for demolition of the building standing in Mouja Chadri, M.S. Plot Nos. 1526, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530 and 1531 in the district of Ranchi. The petitioners' case is that they are tenants of the private respondents since 1968. It is the contention of the petitioners that the private respondent has now resorted to demolition of the building by taking recourse to the provisions provided under Municipal Act, 2011 by getting it declared to be a dilapidated building, although the requirements of Section 387 of the said Act stipulate notice upon not only the owner of the building but also any other person having interest in the building whether lessee or otherwise to show cause as to why the demolition of the building should not be carried out. It is submitted that the impugned order has been issued without any notice to the petitioners.

(2.) The respondent-Municipal Corporation, on the other hand, has stated that the house in question is in a dilapidated condition and permission was sought for its demolition. The house in question was inspected by Engineer of the Corporation and Annexure-D to the counter affidavit dated 20.1.2012 is the inspection report of the Junior Engineer of the Corporation. As per the said report, it has been found that the building is 70-75 years old and in a dilapidated condition. Several cracks have been found in the walls and vertical cracks have also been found showing that the building is in falling condition and structure of the building has also suffered cracks. The building has been constructed by using bricks and wooden logs (Sahtir) and the wooden part is being found to have decayed The part portion of the house has also been found to have fallen. In these circumstances, the building could be declared as a danger building.

(3.) Counsel for the Corporation submits that notices were issued to the private respondent as also the petitioners. However, the petitioners have not chosen to respond the same and approached this Court.