Mandatory hearing requirement defeats vague demolition notice; sanctioned construction restored while invalid demolition action was not sustained.

A demolition order issued under Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act was invalid because the mandatory safeguard of prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to show cause was not followed. The notices were served in the name of a deceased person, did not properly identify or describe the property, and in substance operated as a final demolition order without a hearing, making the action arbitrary and illegal. The Court also held that only the unauthorised portion of the construction, if any, could be questioned where part of the work was covered by a sanctioned plan, so restoration of the sanctioned construction was justified while the remainder of the demolition action was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demolition notice and consequential order were valid when the statutory opportunity of hearing was not afforded and the notice was vague and issued without proper description of the property; (ii) whether the appellate interference and limited restoration relief were justified in respect of the sanctioned construction.

Issue (i): Whether the demolition notice and consequential order were valid when the statutory opportunity of hearing was not afforded and the notice was vague and issued without proper description of the property.

Analysis: Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 required service of notice and a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a demolition order could be made. The notices were found to have been issued in the name of a deceased person, were not properly served, and did not clearly describe the property or the extent of alleged unauthorised construction. The final notice, in substance, operated as a demolition order without the mandatory hearing. The absence of compliance with the proviso to Section 269 rendered the action arbitrary and illegal.

Conclusion: The demolition action was invalid and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate interference and limited restoration relief were justified in respect of the sanctioned construction.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the construction was partly covered by a sanctioned plan and that only the unauthorised portion, if any, required scrutiny. Since the authorities had not identified the exact extent of unauthorised construction before proceeding, the relief was confined to restoring the construction for which sanction had been obtained. The appeal against the demolition order was maintainable because the notice had culminated in a final order under Section 269.

Conclusion: Limited restoration of the sanctioned construction was justified, while the remainder of the demolition order was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with modification, and the sanctioned construction was directed to be restored while the illegal demolition action was not upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a demolition power is conditioned on prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to show cause, non-compliance with that mandatory safeguard, coupled with a vague notice lacking proper identification of the property, invalidates the demolition action.

---