Back
Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Authority To Evict Occupants From Dangerous Dilapidated Public Structures
The at Jabalpur has delivered a significant ruling, clarifying the scope of administrative power in addressing the hazards posed by dilapidated structures. In a case involving multiple petitions, Justice Himanshu Joshi affirmed that the presence of ongoing civil litigation regarding property titles or tenancy does not divest authorities of their to secure public safety.
The Backdrop of the Dispute
The petitions were filed by Dinesh Kumar, Rupesh Soni, and Desh Bhushan Jain, who contested orders issued by the , and subsequently affirmed by the . The orders required the immediate vacation of premises located at Loharwali Gali, Bariyaghat, Sagar. The authorities categorized the building as structurally unsafe, dilapidated, and a potential .
The petitioners alleged that these proceedings were a tactical maneuver by the , acting in collusion with the , to forcibly evict them under the guise of public safety. They argued that the structural assessments by the , the , and the were conducted unilaterally, denying them and failing to account for their legal status as tenants.
Legal Arguments and Statutory Mandate
The petitioners relied on several judicial precedents, asserting that civil disputes should remain confined to civil courts and that the invocation of , was an abuse of process.
Conversely, the and the State maintained that the action was purely preventive. They presented evidence, including technical reports and photographs, demonstrating that the century-old structure was in a precarious state, posing an imminent threat of collapse onto a busy public road. The respondents argued that the primary legal objective under Section 152 BNSS is to avert danger to human life, which must take precedence over private property disputes.
Key Observations
In its assessment, the Court drew a clear distinction between civil adjudication and administrative preventive measures. Highlighting the protective intent of the law, Justice Himanshu Joshi noted:
"The existence of civil litigation regarding title or tenancy by itself does not denude the competent authority of its statutory power to take preventive measures where a structure is found to be dangerous and poses a threat to public safety."
The Court further clarified that its under could not be invoked simply to contest the findings of expert bodies:
"Merely because the petitioners dispute the correctness of the expert reports would not justify exercise of under , particularly when have been recorded by the competent authorities on the basis of technical evidence."
The judgment further observed that the
"impugned proceedings do not adjudicate ownership or tenancy rights and are confined to the limited object of preventing
and safeguarding human life."
Final Decision and Implications
Finding no evidence of or perversity in the lower courts' findings, the High Court dismissed the petitions. The ruling reinforces that the state’s duty to prevent structural disasters and protect public safety operates independently of private civil grievances. This decision provides clear guidance for local authorities dealing with dangerous structures, ensuring that public safety measures remain unhindered by parallel civil proceedings. Consequently, all interim protections previously granted to the occupants were vacated, clearing the path for the enforcement of the original eviction directives.
