TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at. Out of these four letters patent appeals, the Municipal Corporation has come up in one of the appeals before us, i.e. Appeal No. 188 of 1974 which arose out of first appeal No. 10 of 1968 which again arose out of the Civil Suit No. 311 of 1966. The short facts are that on the 26th March, 1960, the plaintiff respondent herein purchased a built-up house. In 1965, there was construction of some walls without the sanction of the Municipal Corporation. On the 21st July, 1965, notice was issued by the Estate officer of the Municipal Corporation under Section 260(1)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. In reply to this notice, the plaintiff-respondent contended that the impugned construction was not made by the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is described in section 254 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or byelaws, the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceeding in respect of such building or work under section 264, shall- (a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. Clause (b) of Section 260 provides that in the contingency specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed against the person who has commenced or carried out the construction contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws or the rules or whether in view of the language used in sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 260 namely has erected such building notice could also be issued to any person other than who has actually built the unauthorised building. But it is submitted that if section 260 is read in conjunction with section 478 of the Act and if so read then it contemplates action both against the person who has commenced or is constructing the building as well as the person who is the owner of the building which has been constructed or erected without the permission and in violation of the laws or the rules. Section 478 is as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng one of construction of a provision of a statute, in our opinion, that construction must be so made as to be in conformity with the other provisions of that particular statute and the provisions must be read as a whole. This being a question of law, this section can be relied upon in support of the notice under section 260(1)(a). If indeed section 478 comprehends both the owner or the occupier who has actually constructed and as well as the owner or occupier of the building which has been unauthorisedly constructed, then the action of the Corporation can be supported. It is well settled that the exercise of a power, if there is indeed a power, will be referable to a jurisdiction, when the validity of the exercise of that power is in issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot the owner at the time of such notice, the owner at the time of giving such notice shall also be liable for carrying out the requisition of the Commissioner, makes it clear that the action for demolition or removal can be taken by the Corporation or Municipal authorities exercising power under provisions of the said Act against persons who had not themselves built the infringing portion. Chapter XV of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as applicable to the area concerned, deals with the building regulations and includes section 260 of the Act. These provisions are to regulate the building construction for the safety, health and well-being of the inhabitants of the particular municipality or corporation. Therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njoys immunity from any action in respect of the same. That it appears, could not be a proper construction particularly in this case in view of the specific language used in the latter part of sub-section (1) of section 478 of the Act set out herein before. Keeping in background the facts of this case and the said provisions, in our opinion, the action taken by the Corporation was warranted by the provisions of the Act. Therefore it cannot be said that the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation was unauthorised or illegal. In that view of the matter, the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat impugned in this case must be set aside on this aspect of the matter and the appeal is thus allowed and the respondent's suit dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
