Demolition Order Can't Be Based On 'Visual Inspection' Alone Without Structural Audit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an order directing vacation and demolition of a building under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act cannot be based merely on a visual or virtual inspection, without any relevant technical material such as a structural inspection by persons possessing the requisite technical expertise.

The Division Bench of (then) Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing appeals against orders passed by MCD directing occupants of two buildings to vacate the premises and demolish the structures.

The MCD had passed the orders after a “visual inspection” of the buildings, stating that the structures were found to be in a dilapidated and dangerous condition.

Section 348 empowers the Commissioner to require demolition, securing or repair of a building which is ruinous or likely to fall or is dangerous to persons occupying it or passing by. Section 349 deals with requiring occupants to vacate such buildings.

The Court observed that merely recording that a building was found dangerous on visual inspection would not satisfy the requirement of having relevant material forming the basis of such an opinion.

“Any opinion formed by the authorities for passing an order of demolition or vacation under Section 348 / 349 of the Act based on a visual or virtual inspection without getting some kind of structural audit or structural inspection conducted by the persons having technical knowledge, in our opinion, cannot be said to be either relatable or relevant.”

At the same time, the Court noted that the photographs placed on record indicated that the buildings were in a poor condition and that even Appellants' counsel had conceded that the upper floors appeared unsafe.

The Court therefore did not ignore the possibility of an actual danger posed by the structures and directed the MCD to undertake a fresh exercise.

The Corporation was directed to obtain structural data and have the buildings inspected by experts within two days. The MCD was thereafter directed to take a final decision.

For Appellants: Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Umesh Mishra and Ms. Surbhi Mittal, Advs.

For Respondent: Mr. Tushar Parashar, Panel Counsel, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Phore, Advocate, with Mr. Raja Ram Meena, AE, MCD