Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal

(AIR 1975 All. 132)

In Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, it was decided that it is not required to determine whether a lawful action was carried out with mala fide purpose when it is legitimate and authorized by the law.

Provision:

Damnum sine injuria does not lead to any compensation.

Facts:

• Plaintiff built 16 stores on Garhi (a building) without giving the Authority the required notice required by Section 178 of the UP Municipal Act or getting the appropriate sanction under Section 180 of the UP Municipal Act.
• These buildings were destroyed by the defendants while the plaintiff was away.
• On December 18th, while construction work was still ongoing, the plaintiff received the first notice required under Sections 186 and 302 of the UP Municipal Act to halt further development.
• They gave the plaintiff a second warning on December 21st, instructing the Town Area Committee to demolish the structure if the plaintiff does not abide by it and to cease work within two hours of receiving the notification.
• Previously, Lower Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff when he argued that the defendant should have to pay damages to him due to the defendant’s malicious intent.
• The plaintiff asserted that the notice was inadequate because it provided Plaintiff only two hours to stop the construction, demonstrating the lack of a bona fide intention.

Issues

• Can the defendant, who has been legally given permission to initiate a legal action against the plaintiff, be held liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff, even if there is evidence of mala fide intent?

Judgement

1. The SC ruled that the plaintiff can only receive compensation if he can show that the defendant’s illegal actions were the cause of the harm he incurred. When the Defendant’s behavior is lawful, mala fide intention is irrelevant.
2. In this instance, Defendant did not legally harm Plaintiff in order to incur damages.
3. Now, in this case, Section 186 of th Municipal Act gives Defendant the authority to demolish Plaintiff’s construction since the offence he committed is covered by that section.
4. Additionally, even after receiving the first notice on December 18 and a second notice on December 21, the plaintiff failed to appear before the authorities.
5. The plaintiff’s argument that they have a fundamental right to the property has no merit because there is no right to enjoy something that was not obtained properly or that was not built with legal intent. There was no “injury” to Plaintiff because the construction was unauthorized.
6. As a result, the lower appellate court’s decision was quashed and the defendant’s appeal was accepted by the higher court.

Conclusion

In Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, the plaintiff’s construction of the structure was inherently illegal since it violated the restrictions imposed by the town. As no one has a right to an illegal building, the plaintiff did not sustain any injury, and as a result, the issue of damages is not relevant. Hence, it was OK to destroy the building. In light of this, it was determined that the officers of the municipal authorities’ malice was not significant in resolving the issue here.