2021 (7) TMI 1395 - SC - Indian Laws

Power of the High Court in exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - assessment of conflicting technical reports - removal / repair of the wall of the adjoining property - The Appellant submits that, the structures being interlinked, structural repair of any one structure would affect the stability of the adjacent structure. HELD THAT - the High Court has committed a serious error in directing removal of a wall with the assistance of M/s. Shetgiri and Associates, when there were conflicting reports including an earlier report of the Technical Advisory Committee on the basis of the opinions of other Architects, declaring the building to be of the C-1 category. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable. It is not understood how the High Court could have been satisfied that the stability of the building could be restored by repair in the manner directed. The High Court patently erred in passing the impugned order. The impugned order cannot be sustained. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, for the reasons discussed above. The impugned final judgment and order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Condition and classification of the building.
2. Conflicting structural audit reports.
3. High Court's decision to allow removal of an adjoining wall.
4. Proposal for redevelopment and tenant relocation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condition and Classification of the Building:
The premises in question are comprised of three interlinked structures built in 1930, with 24 tenants, including Respondent No. 1. The Appellant claims the building is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition, classified as C-1 and C-2A. C-1 buildings require immediate evacuation and demolition, while C-2A buildings need major structural repairs and/or partial demolition.

2. Conflicting Structural Audit Reports:
The Appellant presented a Structural Audit Report by M/s. Manohar Ashatavadhani & Associates, declaring the building as dangerous and unsafe (C-1 category). The Respondent No. 1 countered with a stability certificate from M/s. Crown Consultants, stating the structure was safe for five years with annual maintenance. Multiple reports and a Technical Advisory Committee review resulted in conflicting opinions, with the final consensus being that the building was very dangerous and in need of immediate evacuation (C-1 category).

3. High Court's Decision to Allow Removal of an Adjoining Wall:
The High Court permitted Respondent No. 1 to remove an adjoining wall with the assistance of M/s. Shetgiri and Associates. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in this decision, as it overlooked conflicting reports and the limitations noted in the Shetgiri report, which was not a stability certificate. The High Court's role is not to adjudicate disputed facts or assess technical reports.

4. Proposal for Redevelopment and Tenant Relocation:
The Appellant proposed a redevelopment plan, offering to provide equivalent area to Respondent No. 1 after reconstruction, free of charge. The proposal included monthly rent during the interim period, advance rent for eleven months, and freight charges. If Respondent No. 1 refused rent, alternative accommodation in a transit camp would be provided. The Appellant assured to bear all redevelopment costs and legal charges.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition. The Appellant's proposal for redevelopment and tenant relocation was deemed reasonable, and all interim orders were vacated. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →