Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAJESH SHANKAR
Chiranjilal Tibrewal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 106/6-5 dated 25.01.2020 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhupur-respondent No. 4, whereby the respondent No. 5 has been directed to demolish the building, situated at Holding No. 0080001923000 XI (New), corresponding to Holding No. 74(Old), ward No. 13, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Madhupur, District- Deoghar (hereinafter referred as the said building) from where, according to the petitioners, they have been carrying on their business as tenants for about 40 years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in possession of rented shops in the said building for about 40 years on payment of monthly rent regularly. The building was originally owned by Mohan Lal Keshab Prasad Gutgutia. The respondent no. 5 being son of late Mohan Lal Keshab Prasad Gutgutia served a notice dated 03.01.2020 to the tenants including the petitioners for vacating the rented premises on the ground that the said build
A tenant of an unauthorized construction lacks standing to challenge a demolition order as they are not considered 'any person aggrieved' under Section 400(3) of the KMC Act.
Public safety concerns override tenant rights when a building is declared unsafe, allowing for immediate demolition without waiting for resolutions of tenancy disputes.
The court ruled that demolition orders must follow due process and should only be executed if significant public interest is at stake, emphasizing the right to appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation Officers must comply with the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, treat everyone equally, and not....
The Superintendent Engineer validly issued a demolition order under delegated authority, despite challenges regarding notice and natural justice, affirming the necessity of judicial efficiency in mun....
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and adherence to procedural safeguards in administrative actions affecting property rights, ruling the demolition illegal due to failure to follow ....
Omission to label a notice with provision under which it is issued would not make it nugatory, if substance thereof is clearly conveyed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article