A demolition notice issued without a hearing or disclosure of the inspection report violates natural justice.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a 736-square-foot ancestral property, in respect of which a partition suit was pending before the Sub-Court, Madurai.

After a third party sought demolition of the building as dilapidated, the Assistant Commissioner issued a demolition notice under Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act.

The petitioner challenged the notice, contending that it was issued without a hearing and without furnishing the inspection report on which it relied.

The Corporation submitted that the matter could be remanded for fresh consideration after an enquiry and hearing.

1. Whether the demolition notice could stand when it was issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the inspection report forming the basis of the demolition proceedings before the authority reconsidered the matter.

The Court referred to Sections 135 and 136 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act in the context of the demolition proceedings and the petitioner’s contention that notice should comply with Section 136.

It applied the principles of natural justice, holding that a decision made without an opportunity of hearing, and without furnishing the report on which it was based, could not be sustained.

The demolition proceedings were based on a report by the Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer, but the petitioner had neither been heard nor given that report to enable an effective response.

The Court therefore found the proceedings procedurally unfair and set them aside. It directed a fresh inspection, including an assessment by a qualified PWD Engineer, followed by disclosure of the report and an opportunity for the petitioner and other concerned parties to make representations.

It directed the Corporation to inspect the property in the presence of the petitioner and other concerned parties, obtain a qualified PWD Engineer’s assessment, furnish the inspection report, hear the concerned parties, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks of receiving the order.

No costs were ordered; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, and the impleadment application was allowed.