ORDER :-A short question as to the liability of a Municipal body to compensate the owner of a house, which is demolished by such Municipality without notice, would arise in this writ petition.

The background of the case, in brief, is as under.

2. The petitioner is owner of an old house bearing No.13-1-156 (old No.13/134) situated at SVN Road, Warangal, within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Warangal (the Corporation, for brevity). On 14-3-1995 at 10.30 a.m., several employees of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 including Building Inspector, Sri Anwar Ali came to petitioners house with bulldozer and started demolishing the same. The petitioner and his son unsuccessfully tried to stop them. The petitioner and his son were allegedly detained by the Police Officer of P.S. Matwada. They were released at 10.00 p.m., on the same day. When they came home, petitioner found his house demolished to the extent of 5 to 8 feet in its entire width of 40 feet. The petitioner also alleges that earlier on 17-11-1994 at the instance of third respondent, the then District Collector, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 tried to demolish the house when he protested. He allegedly sent telegraphic notices to Respondents I to 5, 7 and 8. But, in spite of the same, respondents demolished the petitioners property. The petitioner also alleges that he suffered loss of building to a tune of Rs.75,000/-, and Rs.75,000/- towards loss in business stock and also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for other damages. He, therefore, filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in demolishing the petitioners house as illegal and arbitrary, and also seeks a consequential direction to Respondents I and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being damages to the house and business stock and Rs.1,00,000/- towards unliquidated damages. He also seeks a direction for investigation of the offences against the culprits by an officer above the rank of Superintendent of Police.

3. Respondents 1, 2 and 8 fled separate counter-affidavits, to which petitioner has filed reply affidavit.

4. The Commissioner of Warangal Corporation states that when there was a demand for widening SVN Road by residents of the area, they are agreed to forego their properties affected by road widening, the same was taken up in 1994. The road widening work was completed, but the petitioners house was left untouched. The petitioner was requested to remove the affected portion. As he did not consent, notice, dated 10-3-1995 was issued. He refused to receive the same and the same was pasted on the wall of the petitioners house. The allegation that on 17-11-1994, at the instance of third respondent, Respondents 1 and 2 tried to demolish structures is denied. The receipt of telegraphic notice, dated 17-11-1994, is also denied. It is further stated that though most of the residents in the locality removed their affected portions. But debris was not removed as base platforms could not be removed manually. The residents of the area requested the help of the Corporation in removing these structures. The Corporation also sanctioned amounts for shifting and construction of the drain on either side of the road. So as to complete the work early, a bulldozer of Agro Industries was brought on 10-3-1994 (for removing debris) giving prior information and intimation to all the respondents on either side of the road. While removing the debris on either side of the petitioners house, the wall facing the road collapsed due to vibration of bulldozer as existing structure of the petitioners house is a dilapidated one. The allegation that the petitioners house was demolished beyond repairs is denied. The allegation that the petitioner suffered Rs.75,000/- towards structural loss and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of business stock is also denied.

5. The second respondent in their counter alleged that it prepared a Master Plan for widening the road from Gemini Talkies to Railway Gate showing all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document