Demolition proceedings against an alleged non-owner are unsustainable; authorities must identify and notify the actual responsible owner.

The three writ petitions involved a common challenge to municipal notices dated 27.02.2026 proposing demolition of the petitioners’ residential constructions under Sections 293(1)(II) and 302 of the applicable municipal law.

In WPC No. 4705 of 2026, the notice was issued in the name of Dharmendra Sahu, although the petitioner, Mrs. Preeti Sahu, claimed to have purchased the 677 sq. ft. property on 08.09.2025, obtained mutation in her name, constructed the house, and paid property tax.

She contended that her husband was living separately and was neither the owner nor the person responsible for the construction.

The notice allegedly did not properly identify the property by its khasra number, area, or house number, and no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to her.

The Municipal Corporation submitted that, if the petitioners were the actual owners, it would conduct an enquiry and take action against the person responsible for any unauthorised construction in accordance with law.

Since the petitions involved common questions of fact and law, they were decided by a common order.

Whether a demolition notice issued in the name of a person who is alleged not to be the owner or person responsible for the construction can be sustained against the petitioners claiming ownership and possession of the properties.

Whether demolition or other action for alleged unauthorised construction could be taken without issuing notice to the alleged actual owner and providing an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

Whether the Municipal Corporation could be permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry and take action against the actual owner or person responsible for the construction.

The Court applied Sections 293(1)(II) and 302 of the applicable municipal enactment, under which action concerning alleged unauthorised construction, including demolition, must be taken against the appropriate owner or person responsible for the construction.

It further applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, requiring that a person whose property rights are directly affected by demolition proceedings must receive proper notice and an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Court also recognised that municipal authorities retain the power to enquire into alleged unauthorised construction and take appropriate action against the actual owner or responsible person, but only strictly in accordance with law.

The Court found that the impugned notice was issued in the name of Dharmendra Sahu, whereas the petitioners asserted that he was neither the owner nor the person who had raised the constructions.

Because the notices were not issued to the persons claiming to be the actual owners and affected parties, they could not validly operate against the petitioners.

The absence of notice and hearing to the alleged owners also offended the requirements of natural justice.

At the same time, the Court did not adjudicate finally upon the ownership of the properties or the legality of the constructions.

It preserved the Municipal Corporation’s authority to conduct an appropriate enquiry and, if unauthorised construction was established, proceed against the actual owner or person responsible after following the prescribed legal procedure.

Accordingly, the notices/orders dated 27.02.2026 in all three writ petitions were quashed and set aside.

The Municipal Corporation was granted liberty to conduct a proper enquiry and take appropriate action against the actual owner or person responsible for any unauthorised construction, strictly in accordance with law.