# Ramchandra Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 404
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-20
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 5756 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramchandra-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45961
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law -U.P. Municipalities Act (2 of
1916)-Section 287- Human dwelling/shop
in
dilapidated
condition-Inspection-
Advance Notice - Inspection in presence of
its occupier with at least four hour's,
advance notice must - Exceptional clause -
U/s 263 (2)-Immediate action for the
prevention
of
danger
from
ruinous
buildings -power can be exercised without
complying with provisions u/s 287 - but
power u/s 263 is to be exercised sparingly
only when there is imminent danger of the
building falling causing loss to human life
& property (Para 8, 10, 12)

Impugned notice cum order not contain any fact
to show that building arrived at such a condition
that needed exercise of power u/s 263 urgently
- exceptional clause wrongly invoked - Order set
aside. (Para 13, 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and for payment of
which notice dated 9.12.1999 was issued to
the petitioners.

16. We make it clear that the petitioners
are not entitled for payment of compensation
as per prevalent market value of the acquired
land under the provisions of the Act 2013 as
Writ C No.40507 of 2018 for such prayer,
was dismissed. However, dismissal of Writ C
No.40507 of 2018 would not come in the
way of grant of compensation to the
petitioners under the Act 1894, under which
award has been made inasmuch as in that writ
petition this much was held that petitioners
cannot be granted compensation under the
Act 2013 as acquisition had taken place long
time back. The petitioners are entitled for
compensation under the Act 1894 and they
cannot
be
deprived
of
payment
of
compensation, at all, although their land had
been acquired. To uphold and enforce the
petitioners' constitutional right to property
guaranteed
by
Article
300-A
of
the
Constitution of India, we provide and direct
the respondents-1 to 5 that the petitioners
shall be paid compensation of their acquired
land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
for which award had been made and notice
dated 9.12.1999 had also been issued to
petitioners to receive compensation, if the
same has yet not been made, within a period
of three months from the date of production
of certified copy of this judgment by the
petitioners before respondents-1 to 5.

17. The writ petition is disposed of
with the observations/directions made in
this order/judgment.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A404
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

WRIT - C No. 5756 of 2020

Ramchandra Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nawal Kishore Mishra, Sri S.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, Sri
Satendra Pratap Singh

Civil Law -U.P. Municipalities Act (2 of
1916)-Section 287- Human dwelling/shop
in
dilapidated
condition-Inspection-
Advance Notice - Inspection in presence of
its occupier with at least four hour's,
advance notice must - Exceptional clause -
U/s 263 (2)-Immediate action for the
prevention
of
danger
from
ruinous
buildings -power can be exercised without
complying with provisions u/s 287 - but
power u/s 263 is to be exercised sparingly
only when there is imminent danger of the
building falling causing loss to human life
& property (Para 8, 10, 12)

Impugned notice cum order not contain any fact
to show that building arrived at such a condition
that needed exercise of power u/s 263 urgently
- exceptional clause wrongly invoked - Order set
aside. (Para 13, 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
 & Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K.Tripathi, learned
Advocate holding brief of Sri N.K.Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
9 All. Ramchandra Verma & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents and
perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioners have assailed the order dated
27th January, 2020 passed to vacate the
premises of the shop in question on the
ground that it become 30 years' old and has
reached to dilapidated condition.

3. Assailing the order impugned, it has
been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioners that on 27th January, 2020 notices
were served upon the petitioners to which
they had submitted a detailed reply on 07th
February,
2020.
However,
same
has
remained in unheard and respondents have in
a hurried manner proceeded to demolish the
shops on the ground that the passage of the
civil court building has to be cleared.

4. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent
was
directed
to
have
instructions in the matter and he has placed
instructions before the Court, which are
taken on record.

5. From the instructions, it transpires that
some inspection was carried out of the disputed
shop on 16th January, 2020 and report was
prepared on 17th January, 2020 which was
forwarded to the authority concerned, namely,
City Magistrate, Ballia. However, it appears that
before getting order from City Magistrate in the
matter, respondents have proceeded to pass
impugned order. We have also noticed that
earlier notice issued to the petitioners on
17.01.2020 and then report of inspection
conducted on 16th January, 2020, were not
supplied to the petitioner.

6. We have carefully gone though the
provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916
which deal with such power of a
municipality to enter into demolition of
buildings that have arrived in a dilapidated
condition. Sections 263 and 287 are
relevant for the purpose and while power
has been exercised under Municipalities
Act, 1916, Section 263 provides procedure
for the said purpose and 287 provides
specifically that before arriving at a
conclusion that building has arrived in a
dilapidated condition, an inspection has to
be carried out of the building and that too
in the presence of the occupier.

7. For ready reference and better
appreciation of the provisions and powers
of the municipality in this regard, Section
287 is reproduced in its entirety:-

"287. Ordinary inspection. - (1)
The President, the executive officer and, if
authorised in this behalf by resolution, any
other member, officer or servant of the
[Municipality], may enter into or upon a
building or land, with or without assistants
or workmen, in order to make an inspection
or survey or to execute a work which a
[Municipality] is authorised by this Act, or
by rules or bye-laws, to make a execute, or
which it is necessary for a [Municipality],
for any of the purposes or in pursuance of
any of the provisions of this Act or of rules
or bye-laws, to make or execute :
(2) Provided that, -

(a) except when it is in this Act or
in rules or bye-laws otherwise expressly
provided, no entry shall be made between
sunset and sunrise; and

(b) except when it is in this Act
or in rules or bye-laws otherwise expressly
provided, no building which is used as a
human dwelling shall be so entered,
except with the consent of the occupier
thereof, without going the said occupier
not less than four hours previous written
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice of the intention to make such entry;
and

(c) sufficient notice shall in every
instance by given even when any premises
may otherwise be entered without notice, to
enable the inmates of an apartment
appropriated for females to remove to some
part of the premises where their privacy
need not be disturbed; and

(d) due regard shall always be
had to the social and religious usages of
the occupants of the premises entered."
(Emphasis added)

8. From a bare reading of clause (b)
of Sub-Section 2 of Section 287, it is quite
explicit that if inspection has to be carried
out of a building that has human dwelling it
has to be in presence of its occupier and
that too with at least four hour's, advance
notice.

9. In the present case it has not been
disputed by the respondent authority that
the petitioners are in occupation of the
shop/building
and,
therefore,
in
our
considered
opinion
the
provision
as
contained under Section 287 is required to
be complied with.

10. We are conscious of the fact that
under Section 263 of the Uttar Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1916, power can be
exercised
without
complying
with
provisions under Section 287 but that
power is not only to be exercised sparingly
but there has to be a case of imminent
danger of the building falling.

11. The provisions as contained under
Section 263 of the U.P. Municipalities Act,
1916 is reproduced hereunder:

"263. Power for the prevention
of
danger
from
ruinous
buildings,
unprotected
wells,
etc.
-
(1)
A
[Municipality] may require by notice the
owner or occupier of any land or building,
-

(a) to demolish or to repair in
such manner as it deems necessary any
building wall, bank or other structure, or
anything, affixed thereto, or to remove any
tree, belonging to such owner or in the
possession of such occupier which appears
to the [Municipality] to be in a ruinous
condition or dangerous to persons or
property; or

(b) to repair, protect or enclose,
in such manner as it deems necessary, any
well, tank reservoir, pool or excavation
belonging to such owner or in the
possession of such occupier, which appears
to the [Municipality] to be dangerous by
reason of its situation, want of repair or
other such circumstances.

(2) Where it appears to the
[Municipality] that immediate action is
necessary for the purpose of preventing
imminent danger to any person or
property, it shall be the duty of the
[Municipality]
itself
to
take
such
immediate action, and in such case,
notwithstanding the provisions of Section
287, it shall not be necessary for the
[Municipality] to give notice, if it appears
to the [Municipality] that the object of
taking such immediate action would be
defeated by the delay incurred in giving
notice."
 (Emphasis added)

12. From a bare reading of the
provisions as quoted hereinabove, we can
safely conclude that it clearly speaks of an
emergent situation for there being an
imminent danger from a ruinous building
and for which giving time to the occupier
will only contribute to the danger of such a
building falling at any time causing loss to
9 All. Praveen & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
407
human life and property. So sub section 2
of Section 263 carves out an exception to
the mandatory provisions of Section 287
(supra) meaning thereby, building which is
claimed to be in a dilapidated condition or
in a ruinous condition, should be in such
form that an exercise under Section 287
will be such a long drawn one that before
such proceeding arrives at its logical end,
the ruinous building will fall endangering
life of the people and the property.

13. Applying the above provisions to
the facts of this case as the order impugned
herein is in purported exercise of power
under Section 263 of the Act, we notice
that neither the alleged notice cum order
dated 27th January, 2020 nor, earlier notice
issued in this regard contain any fact to
give an impression that building had
arrived
at
such
a
condition
that
municipality needed to exercise power
under Section 263 urgently and, therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that
exceptional clause has wrongly been
applied in the present case.

14. In such above view of the matter for
non compliance of the provisions as contained
under Section 287(2)(b), notice/order dated
27th January, 2020, cannot be sustained in law
and the matter is required to be revisited by the
authority concerned in consonance with
principles of the natural justice and with due
compliance of the provisions as contained
under Section 287 of the U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916.

15. Accordingly, the orders passed in
respect of respective petitioners dated 27th
January, 2020 (filed as annexure 2 to the
writ petition) are hereby quashed.

16. We further observe and direct that
the authority, if desire to get the building
demolished on the the ground that building
has arrived in dilapidated condition, it shall
follow the procedure prescribed for under
Section 287 of the Act, 1916 by giving
notice to the respective petitioners fixing a
date to be present on the spot on the day of
inspection . The inspection shall be carried
out in the presence of the occupier and
every occupier shall sign inspection memo.
It is thereafter, notices for eviction shall be
issued to the respective petitioners. Thus, if
authority arrives at a conclusion that
building has arrived in a dilapidated
condition in the manner as observed
hereinabove, an appropriate order shall be
passed in the matter.

17. With the aforesaid liberty to the
concerned respondent, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A407
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

WRIT - C No. 5857 of 2020

Praveen & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hira Lal Singh (Kushwaha)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anjali Upadhya, Sri Ramendra
Pratap Singh

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,1894Section 4 & 6 - claim-entitlement to
additional compensation and allotment of
abadi plot-petitioners are not entitled to