Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court at Goa has allowed a writ petition under Article 227, quashing twelve common revisional orders passed by the Secretary for Urban Development, Government of Goa, which had set aside a municipal demolition order and remanded the matter for fresh inspection. The Court held that the revisional authority exceeded its limited jurisdiction by questioning technical findings and directing a remand despite overwhelming expert material establishing imminent danger. Emphasising that orders under the Goa Municipalities Act dealing with ruinous buildings are preventive and time-sensitive, the Court restored the demolition direction, holding that human safety must prevail over competing private claims.
Facts
The dispute concerned a ground-plus-one commercial building situated in the heart of Vasco-da-Gama, housing over twenty shops, many occupied by tenants for decades. The structure, constructed around 1973, had a long history of municipal action due to its deteriorated condition. The erstwhile owner invoked statutory powers in 2016 and 2017, producing an expert report by the Goa Engineering College that declared the building ruinous and advised immediate evacuation and demolition.
Acting on this material, the Chief Officer of the municipal council issued notices and passed a demolition order in 2019. These orders went unchallenged. Subsequently, portions of the building collapsed in 2020 and 2022. A fresh municipal inspection in June 2023 again found the structure ruinous and dangerous, leading to a second demolition order. Some occupants produced a private consultant’s report suggesting repair and life extension. After further expert inputs, the Chief Officer passed a third demolition order in January 2024 under statutory powers. This order was stayed and later set aside by the Secretary for Urban Development in revision, prompting the present writ petition by the owner.
Issues
The core issues before the High Court were whether the revisional authority under the Goa Municipalities Act could interfere with a demolition order passed to address imminent danger, whether it could direct a remand for fresh inspection in the absence of illegality or procedural irregularity, and whether competing private disputes such as tenancy claims or civil suits could justify delaying preventive municipal action. The Court also examined the scope of judicial and administrative review in matters involving technical assessments of building safety.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner-owner argued that the revisional authority had acted far beyond its narrow jurisdiction. It was contended that the Chief Officer had relied on multiple expert reports, including two detailed reports by the Goa Engineering College and the municipal technical wing, all consistently declaring the building unsafe and beyond repair. The revisional authority, without identifying any illegality or procedural impropriety, merely relied on the passage of time and a private report suggesting repairs to justify remand. This, it was argued, defeated the very purpose of statutory provisions meant to prevent imminent danger. The petitioner stressed that municipal authorities must be allowed to act decisively where public safety is at stake.
Respondents’ arguments
The occupants and tenants opposed the petition, contending that there were conflicting expert opinions and that fairness required an independent reassessment. They argued that the building had remained standing for years after the initial report, suggesting that demolition was not immediately necessary. It was further contended that statutory tenants were being indirectly evicted through demolition proceedings, bypassing protections under rent control law. Some respondents also pointed to pending civil suits claiming adverse possession or ownership rights, alleging suppression of material facts by the petitioner. The State supported the revisional orders, asserting that remand for fresh inspection was justified in the face of divergent technical opinions.
Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme governing municipal control over dangerous buildings. It noted that the relevant provision empowers the Chief Officer to act swiftly where a structure is ruinous or likely to fall, with the object of preventing loss of life and property. The Act deliberately restricts appellate remedies in such cases, providing only limited revisional oversight.
Revisional powers, the Court observed, are confined to correcting illegality, impropriety, or serious procedural irregularity. They do not permit a reappreciation of evidence or substitution of technical opinions. Preventive municipal action, by its nature, cannot be subjected to prolonged adjudication without undermining public safety.
Precedent analysis
The High Court relied on earlier decisions addressing similar provisions under municipal laws, which consistently hold that courts and authorities should defer to expert technical assessments in matters of structural safety. Precedents emphasise that writ courts and revisional authorities cannot decide whether a building is actually safe or prefer one expert view over another unless the decision is manifestly perverse. The Court reiterated the settled principle that in cases of doubt, authorities must err on the side of caution, as buildings can be rebuilt but human lives cannot be restored.
Court’s reasoning
Applying these principles, the Court found the revisional authority’s approach legally untenable. The Secretary had not identified any illegality or procedural flaw in the demolition order. Instead, he ventured into technical territory by speculating that the building was still standing years after the first report and by giving weight to private opinions unsupported by rigorous testing.
The Court attached significant weight to the comprehensive 2026 report of the Goa Engineering College, prepared pursuant to judicial directions, which conclusively found extensive, irreversible structural damage, severe corrosion, and a high risk of sudden collapse. In contrast, the private reports relied upon by the occupants were either based on visual inspection or lacked credentials and testing. The Court held that allowing remand in such circumstances would amount to paralysing urgent safety action and exposing the public to grave risk.
Conclusion
The writ petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the twelve revisional orders dated 23 April 2025 and restored the demolition order passed by the municipal Chief Officer. The Court clarified that pending civil disputes or tenancy claims would not be affected by demolition and could be pursued independently. The judgment reaffirmed that preventive municipal powers must be exercised decisively and cannot be diluted by speculative or non-technical objections when expert evidence establishes imminent danger.
Implications
This ruling has significant implications for urban safety and municipal governance. It reinforces the primacy of expert technical assessments in decisions involving dangerous buildings and limits the scope for administrative or judicial interference that delays urgent action. For tenants and occupants, the judgment clarifies that statutory protections do not extend to occupying structures declared imminently unsafe. For municipal authorities, it provides judicial backing to act firmly under safety provisions without fear of protracted litigation. Overall, the decision underscores that public safety considerations override all competing private interests.
Case law references
- Vivek Shantaram Kokate v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai: Held that courts cannot substitute their views for expert opinions in matters of dangerous buildings; relied upon to limit interference.
- High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation: Emphasised that human safety is paramount and authorities must err on the side of caution; applied to justify demolition.
- Vikas Premises Cooperative Society v. Municipal Corporation: Reiterated deference to technical findings and narrow scope of judicial review; principles followed.
FAQs
Q1. Can a municipal demolition order be set aside in revision?
Only if the order suffers from illegality or serious procedural irregularity. Revisional authorities cannot reappreciate technical evidence.
Q2. Do tenancy rights prevent demolition of a dangerous building?
No. Demolition for safety reasons does not extinguish tenancy rights, which can be pursued separately, but it cannot be stalled on that ground.
Q3. Can courts choose between conflicting expert reports on building safety?
Generally no. Courts and authorities defer to qualified expert assessments unless the decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence.