TOWN AREA COMMITTEE Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff by an act of defendants. Plaintiff' case was that he had made constructions of 16 shops on the old foundations of the building known as Garni and the defendant Town Area Committee acting through its Chairman and Vice-Chair-man, who are defendants 2 and 3 illegally demolished these constructions. By this demolition plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 1,000. According to him the notice under Section 186 of the U. P. Municipalities Act was bad as it gave to the plaintiff only two hours' time to demolish the constructions and not a reasonable time as contemplated in Section 302 of the Act. It was also asserted that demolition after this notice was bad as the notice was served at a time when the plaintiff was out of station. The action was said to be mala fide.

(2.) THE plea of the defendants was that the constructions had been made by the plaintiff without giving the notice of intention to erect the building under Section 178 and without obtaining the necessary sanction under Section 180 of the Act. It was denied that the action was mala fide and it was asserted that the notice to demolish the constructions had been given earlier on 18th December requiring the stoppage of further construction and removal of constructions already made and when it was not complied with an order had been passed by the District Magistrate directing the Town Area Committee to take action under Section 186. Thereafter another notice was given on December 21 which also was not complied with and only then the building was demolished in accordance with law. On these grounds it was alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any damages.

(3.) PLAINTIFF went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court and suit was decreed against defendants. Nos. l to 3. The claim was however, dismissed as against defendant No. 4. i. e. the State of U. P. The first appellate Court held that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had acted with malicious intention in ordering the demolition of the building. It held that the order of the District Magistrate could not legalise the demolition because the notice had not given reasonable time to the plaintiff to demolish the constructions. On the finding that the defendants' action was high handed the lower appellate Court awarded plaintiff a decree for damages. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have now come up in appeal.