A municipality cannot demolish property constructed before its jurisdiction without following legal protocols, and the court upheld that the property did not violate development plans.

JUDGMENT :

S. M. MODAK, J.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pethe at the admission stage.

2. The Court of Civil Judge Senior Division as per judgment th dated 27 May 2015 has decreed the suit filed by present Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and by Respondent No.2. Suit was decreed partly and present Appellant-Pune Municipal Corporation is directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,91,602/- towards the damages. Present Respondent No.3 and 4 are owners of the plot whereas Respondent No.5 is the partnership firm of which Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the Partners. Respondent No.8 is also the partnership firm of which Respondent No.9 is one of the Partner. The parties will be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

3. The Defendant Nos.2 to 8 being the builders have constructed a building on a plot of land bearing Survey No.25, Hissa No.3/1, corresponding to CTS No.2258 and 2259 at Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The original Plaintiffs have purchased the flats on 1 floor and 2nd floor vide the agreements dated 22^nd February 1996 and 23^rd December 1996 on paying necessary consideration. These agreements were duly registered. On this background, Plaintiffs contend that PMC has issued a notice of demolition dated 4^th November 2004 under Section 478(1) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The Plaintiffs apprehended that the building in which their flats are situated, will be demolished and hence, they have filed the Civil Suit asking for several reliefs after giving the pre-suit notice under Section 487 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (for short ‘BPMC Act’) Act, 1949 on 4^th November 2004. Before filing of suit the Pune Municipal Corporation has demolished the building.

4. Pune Municipal Corporation contended that this building is unauthorized and constructed without obtaining permission and this building is coming in the road-line of the development plan. As the building was demolished, Plaintiffs sought for mandatory injunction so also claimed damages.

5. Pune Municipal Corporation contested the suit and their plea was that, the building was constructed without obtaining permission. Whereas, Plaintiffs’ contention is that the building was constructed when the said area was not falling within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and in fact the area was included on 11^th September 1997. According to the Plaintiffs, as such, the Corporation is not having right to demolish the said building. The second contention taken by the Pune Municipal Corporation is that the building is coming in the road-line of a development plan and as such, needs to be demolished. The other Defendants have not contested the suit. Some of them had filed written-statement but not given evidence and others have failed to appear inspite of service of the summons.

6. On behalf of the Plaintiffs one Pradeepsingh Yeshwant Gaikwad has given evidence whereas on behalf of the Corporation, one Sudhir Kadam, Deputy Engineer and one Prassana Joshi, Executive Engineer have given evidence. Both the parties also relied upon the documentary evidence in the form of pre-suit correspondence and the plans.

Trial Court Judgment

7. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence concluded that, the building was not falling within the road-line of the development plan and as such, the demolition of the building by the Corporation was not legal. The trial Court has assessed the damages and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.16,91,602/-. Those findings are there in issue No.2 (Page-67).

Appellate Court

8. The Corporation challenged