A Delhi court has dismissed a man's suit seeking damages from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for demolishing a portion of his almost 70-year old property on the grounds that it was hanging precariously.
Additional District Judge Kamini Lau rejected the man's appeal challenging a trial court's order saying it was MCD's legal obligation to take remedial action if the portion (parapet wall) of the property, constructed in 1947, was likely to fall.
"In case, if it is likely to fall or appears to be dangerous, it is the legal obligation of MCD to step in under the given circumstances and take necessary remedial action, which may extend to demolition of the dangerous portion as has happened in the present case.
"This being the background as the appellant has failed to place on record any photograph of the suit property to show the existing position or to establish his claim that no harm was possible to anybody if the ruins would have fallen down," the court said.
It also rejected the arguments of Raghubir Saran, resident of Sabzi Mandi in north Delhi, that if the parapet wall would have fallen, no damage would have been caused to anyone because it was located in an open space.
"I find this argument of the appellant (Saran) totally shocking. One cannot wait for disaster to happen. It is the duty of the MCD to ensure that all steps are taken immediately to prevent any damage/harm to the lives of the persons who are using the property and who are likely to be passing through the area.
"He cannot turn away by saying that no harm could have been caused to public persons because once the construction in any building is found to be dangerous or in ruined condition, there is every possibility that anybody occupying, residing and passing-by of building maybe harmed," the judge said.
The man, in his suit, had alleged that MCD had demolished the parapet wall of his building at the behest of two persons on the pretext that it was dangerous property.
He had claimed damages of over Rs one lakh with interest for mental agony, pain and damage caused to the property.
The court noted that the building was constructed in 1947 and at the time of demolition in 2004, it was a 57-year-old structure which would wear and tear with the passage of time.
It added that the man was required to establish that the building was not dangerous which he had failed to do.
