2008 (10) TMI 732 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued against a deceased person.
2. Vagueness and lack of property description in the notices.
3. Denial of opportunity for a hearing before demolition.
4. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain the appeal.
5. Extent of unauthorized construction and its regularization.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notices Issued Against a Deceased Person:
The notices dated 10.01.2001 and 01.02.2001 were issued in the name of Hira Devi, who had died in 1999. The High Court held that issuing notices against a dead person rendered them invalid.

2. Vagueness and Lack of Property Description in the Notices:
The notices were found to be vague as they did not contain the correct description of the property. The High Court observed that the notices were otherwise vague and did not disclose the extent of unauthorized construction.

3. Denial of Opportunity for a Hearing Before Demolition:
The High Court opined that no opportunity of hearing was given to the first respondent before the demolition order was issued. The demolition order dated 21.12.2001 was passed without a show cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice.

4. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to Entertain the Appeal:
The appellant contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as merely a notice to show cause was issued. However, the Supreme Court held that the notice dated 14.12.2001 was a final order of demolition, making the appeal maintainable.

5. Extent of Unauthorized Construction and Its Regularization:
The respondent claimed that only an area of 14 sq. ft. was unauthorized and could have been regularized upon payment of a compounding fee. The Supreme Court directed that the appellant should restore the constructions for which the sanction had been obtained and modify the impugned order to that extent.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with modifications, directing the appellant to restore the sanctioned constructions. The appellant was also ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, assessed at Rs. 2,00,000/-.