Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Rokhum, learned Additional Advocate General for the State Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

2. The Respondent No.3, the District Magistrate & Chairman of District Disaster Management Authority, Aizawl District, Aizawl, in the interest of public safety, issued an order under Section 133 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and under Section 34 (K) of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 vide No. C.16011/90/2012-DC (A) dated 27.06.2013 directing the petitioner to vacate his building, situated at above the Temple to Vaivakawn Road, Dawrpui West, Aizawl, within 1 (one) month from the date of issue of the order and also to complete the execution of dismantling the said building within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of issuance of the same, so as to prevent disaster and any untoward incident in future.

3. Hence this petition by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 27.06.2013 as well as for quashing and setting aside all other consequential actions contemplated thereunder.

4. The court on 31.07.2013, at the motion stage of this case, suspended the said impugned order dated 27.06.2013 and other consequential actions contemplated in pursuance of the said order, which is still in force.

5. The petitioner submitted that the Land Revenue & Settlement Department of the Government of Mizoram, in terms of Section 11 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956 vide LSC (Land Settlement Certificate) No. AZL-82 of 1984 duly allotted him a plot of land for dwelling purpose at Bazar Bungkawn within Dawrpui West locality, popularly known as Bazar Bungkawn, Dawrpui. Over the said land, the petitioner with his life’s savings and liquidating his other assets, constructed a 10 (ten) storied R.C.C. building (herein after referred to as the said building/building in question), which was completed in the year 2000. The petitioner is regularly paying all the Government dues/cess etc. for the said land and building and there was no objection from any quarter, including any authority concerned with regard to construction, structure or stability of the said building.

6. The petitioner submitted that his said building has been designed structurally to withstand the load of the building and has more than sufficient foundation strength, which is being maintained properly and even after more than thirteen years of its existence, the same is one of the strongest structure in the city of Aizawl.

7. The petitioner further submitted that during the time of construction and completion of the said building, there was neither any building regulation in existence or in force in the State of Mizoram nor there was any regulatory authority to grant or refuse/reject permission for construction of any building and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner either to apply for or to get any permission for constriction of the said building and that the State respondents after considering his application granted water and electricity connection to his said building, which is rented out to more than 30 (thirty) tenants and the petitioner with his other family members, are surviving from such rental income.

8. The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the purported order issued by the respondent No. 3 in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 133 (d) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 34(K) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is bad in law as the same was issued without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his said building should not be vacated and demolished and the said action of the State respondents is in utter violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and in violation of the provisions of natural justice. The petitioner further alleged that by the said action, the State respondents are going to deprive him from his landed property and that his said building is going to be vacated a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document