Pandre Laxman Rao vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Notice No.G1/TP/ Dilapidated/TMS/6970/TPS-I/25/2022 dt.15.07.2022, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 182 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act’), to the unofficial respondent No.4, being the owner of the building in Door No.6-26-178 situated in Shradhanand Gunj Road, Division 16, Nizamabad Town, directing that the premises be vacated immediately to prevent all cause of danger, without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary, without power and without jurisdiction.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri V.Sathyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition, notice to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not necessary for adjudication of the lis involved in this Writ Petition.

Petitioner contends that, while respondent No.4 is the owner of the subject building, the petitioner’s father had taken the same on rent and was running a hotel, named as ‘Shivaji Hotel’; and that subsequent to the death of the petitioners’ father, petitioner has been carrying on the said business therein.

Petitioner further contends that when the unofficial respondents in order to evict the petitioner from the subject premises, had approached respondent No.2 authority by claiming that the subject premises has become old and dilapidated and needs to be demolished, the 2nd respondent authority has issued the impugned notice and directed to vacate the dilapidated structure immediately and repair/remove dilapidated structures of the said premises within seven days, failing which, further action will be initiated to pull down/demolish the said building.

Petitioner  further  contends  that  though  the  subject  notice  is addressed to the 4th respondent, the petitioner being occupier of the said premises, no notice has been issued to him.

Petitioner further contends that the 2nd respondent-authority without getting the building inspected by the Structural Engineers of the respondent corporation have straight away issued the impugned notice declaring the subject building to be in a dilapidated condition requiring it to be demolished, in exercise of powers conferred on the authority under Section 182 of the Act.

Petitioner further contends that even though the 2nd respondent authority claims the building to be in dilapidated condition requiring it to be demolished, the petitioner got the said building examined by a Structural Engineer, who had opined that the building can be put to use by attending to minor repairs.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the report given by the Structural Engineer engaged by the petitioner himself indicates that the building to be unsafe, inasmuch as it has been stated that the existing slabs have sustained significant damage necessitating their replacement to avoid any potential hazards.

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even the elevation of the building requires prompt attention as per the said report, as the Structural Engineer noticed cracks and damages having occurred therein.

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner having obtained a report from per the Structural Engineer has not taken any steps either by himself being an occupier of the subject premises or by issuing a notice to the owner to get the subject premises repaired; and that, on the other hand, has approached this Court questioning the notice issued in July, 2022, after a lapse of one year three months.

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

A reading of Section 182 of the Act provides that, if any structure appears to the Commissioner to be in a ruinous state and dangerous to the passersby or to the occupiers of neighboring structures, he may by notice, require the owner or occupier of the premises to fence off, pull down or repair such structure, so as to prevent any danger therefrom.

Sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Act also provides that if the Commissioner is of the view that immediate action is necessary, he shall himself, even before giving such notice or before expiry of time of the notice, fence off, pull down or repair such structures or fence off a part of any street or take such temporary measures as he thinks fit to prevent danger and the cost of doing so shall be recoverable from the owner or occupier.

Though the 2nd respondent authority had issued notice directing the owner of the building to pull down the structure, it has not been stated therein as to the basis for the authorities to come to the conclusion that the building cannot be repaired either by the owner or by the authority himself for which the authority could exercise powers under Section 182(2) of the Act.

On the other hand, the 2nd respondent authority had straight away held the building to be in a dilapidated condition without any report from the concerned Structural Engineers of the municipality, who on causing inspection, have given a report holding the building to be beyond repairs for it to be brought down. In the absence of such an exercise being undertaken by the 2nd respondent authority, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent authority straight away cannot be held to be validly issued by the authority exercising powers conferred under Section 182 of the Act.

Accordingly, the 2nd respondent authority is directed to cause inspection of the building by deputing Engineers of the 2nd respondent authority, to ascertain the stability of the building and also examine whether the building can be repaired for being put to use or being beyond repairs and upon the Engineers causing inspection and submitting a report, the 2nd respondent authority shall take further action as provided for under Section 182 of the Act.

Though the petitioner had called in question the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice under Section 182 of the Act holding the building to be a dilapidated one to be brought down, the petitioner himself having got the building examined by a Structural Engineer, who had also opined the building to be unsafe, cannot remain silent, without taking any steps either by himself or by the owner of the building to make a safe one for it to be occupied.

A perusal of the undated report submitted by the Structural Consultant Engineer, on the other hand, is of a matter of concern as the Structural Engineer had categorically stated that the existing slabs have sustained significant damage necessitating their replacement to avoid any potential hazards.

If the above said report is taken into consideration, the inaction on the part of the petitioner, who is an occupier of the building, as well as that of the unofficial respondent No.4, who claims to be the owner of the building, in the considered view of this Court poses a threat not only to the petitioner, who is carrying on the business therein, but also to the people, who visit the petitioner’s premises, as the petitioner is running a hotel therein and also to the neighbours as well as passersby.

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondent authority is to be directed to take steps to cause inspection of subject building by the Engineers of the Corporation, within a period of one week from today and on inspection, if it is found that the subject building can be repaired and put to use, then, take steps to ensure that the building is put to use by getting it repaired, or else, if the building is declared as beyond repair, take further steps in accordance with law.

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.