RAMBHUSAN DAS Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that action as required under Sec. 275 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act') for demolition of a dilapidated building is not being taken by the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality though the said authority had found the building to be unsafe for habitation and dangerous to public safety more than a year back.

(2.) The petitioner's stand is that the building styled as 'Laxmi Shadra Kotha' standing in mouza Chudangasahi on plot No. 280 of Khata No. 233 of Unit No. 18 at Laxmi Bazar, Puri town, belongs to Sanachhata Math. The first floor of the building was let out to the tenants. By passage of time due to natural decay, the building has become dilapidated, and there is imminent danger of its colapsing, endangering human lives and properties. In view of the urgency involved, a prayer was made to the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality to take immediate action under Sec. 275 of the Act. Reference was made to the recommendation made by the Councillor of the Ward in which the building in question is situated. The Executive Officer by his letter dated 19-11-1994, acting on the application of the petitioner dated 20-7-1994, directed him to dismantle the dilapidated building which is unsafe for habitation, within 7 days from the date of receipt of that notice. It was further indicated in the said letter that in case the petitioner did not do so, the Municipality shall be forced to take down the same for public safety as per the requirement of Sec. 275(2) of the Act and the petitioner shall be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000.00towards demolition Undisputedly, the said amount was deposited on 21-11-1994. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Municipal authorities for immediate action, but no step was taken and finally he was asked to take back the amount on the ground that no sufficient staff is available to take up the demolition work. Pursuant to the notice issued, the Executive Officer has entered his appearance and a counter affidavit has been filed. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is at great variance with the earlier views of the authorities. It is stated that the sole purpose of the petitioner was to evict the tenants under the garb of demolition of first floor. It is also stated that the building is not so unsafe as to requiem demolition. Mr. S.K. Nayak-1, learned counsel for the Municipality submits that the Municipality should not be utilised for evicting tenants, and the building being not so dilapidated as to warrant action under Sec. 275 of the Act, the authority is justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner.

(3.) Sec. 275 of the Act has been pressed into service by both the parties. The said provision, so far as relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows :