Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal

A man built sixteen shops without the notice or sanction the law required. The town area committee demolished them, and he sued for Rs. 1,000, saying the action was mala fide (in bad faith). The Allahabad High Court held that he suffered no legal injury, so he could not get compensation.

Quick Revision

Parties

Town Area Committee — defendant No. 1 and appellant. It is the body that, according to the plaintiff, demolished the constructions through its Chairman and Vice-Chairman (para 1).

The Chairman of the Town Area Committee — defendant No. 2 and appellant. The first appellate Court found that the Chairman acted with malicious intention (para 4).

The Vice-Chairman of the Town Area Committee — defendant No. 3 and appellant. The first appellate Court made the same finding against this defendant (para 4).

State of U. P. — defendant No. 4. The claim against the State was dismissed by the first appellate Court (para 4).

Prabhu Dayal — plaintiff and respondent. He had constructed sixteen shops that were demolished.

Procedural History

1. Suit. Prabhu Dayal sued for compensation for damage caused by the defendants' act. He filed the suit in the Court of the Munsif (para 5), a trial-level civil court. He claimed the loss as Rs. 1,000 (para 1).
2. Trial Court. It held that he built without complying with Section 178 and without the sanction required by Section 180. It held that the Board had a right to demolish and that reasonable time was given. It dismissed the suit (para 3).
3. First appeal. The plaintiff appealed. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit against defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The claim against defendant No. 4, the State of U. P., was dismissed (para 4).
4. First appellate Court's findings. It held that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman acted with malicious intention. It held that the District Magistrate's order could not make the demolition legal because the notice did not give reasonable time. It called the action high handed and awarded damages (para 4).
5. Second appeal. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appealed to the High Court (para 4).
6. Preliminary objection. The respondents said no second appeal lay. The High Court overruled the objection (para 5).
7. Decision. The High Court decided the appeal on 12 July 1974.

Facts

1. Prabhu Dayal made constructions of 16 shops on the old foundations of the building known as Garhi (para 1).
2. He gave no notice of intention to erect the building under Section 178 of the U. P. Municipalities Act (para 2; para 7).
3. He did not obtain the sanction required by Section 180 of the Act (para 2; para 7).
4. The building adjoins a public street, so prior notice and sanction were necessary. The trial Court found this, and the appellate Court did not reverse it (para 7).
5. A notice dated 18 December asked him to stop further construction and remove the constructions already made (para 2).
6. The notice was served on the 18th and required demolition before the 18th. The Court said it could not be complied with in its terms (para 8).
7. He did not comply with the notice, and he did not appear before the authority to show cause why the building should not be demolished (para 2; para 8).
8. The District Magistrate then directed the Town Area Committee to act under Section 186 (para 2).
9. Another notice was given on 21 December, three days later. It gave two hours' time to demolish, and the plaintiff did not comply (para 1; para 2; para 8).
10. The plaintiff made no objection at that time that two hours were not enough (para 8).
11. The Town Area Committee, acting through its Chairman and Vice-Chairman (defendants 2 and 3), demolished the constructions (para 1; para 2).
12. The plaintiff said the notice was served when he was out of station (para 1).
13. He said he lost Rs. 1,000 through the demolition. He said the action was mala fide (para 1).

Issues Raised

1. Does a second appeal lie, with Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code in view? The damages claimed were Rs. 1,000, and the suit was said to be that the Court of Small Causes can hear (para 5).
2. Does a suit for compensation for damage by illegal execution of legal process fall within Clause 35(j) of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act? Does it do so even when the process itself is challenged as invalid (para 5)?
3. Does malice (an evil motive) on the part of the defendants make them liable to pay damages (para 6)?
4. Did the plaintiff suffer injuria (a legal injury) so as to be entitled to compensation (para 7; para 10)?
5. Did the notice, said not to give reasonable time, make the demolition illegal (para 8)?
6. Did the plaintiff have a right to hold and enjoy a building constructed without prior sanction, so that its demolition was injuria (para 9)?

Arguments Contended

For the appellants (Town Area Committee, Chairman and Vice-Chairman)

• The plaintiff made the constructions without notice of intention under Section 178 (para 2).
• He made them without the sanction required by Section 180 (para 2).
• The action was not mala fide (para 2).
• A notice to demolish was given earlier, on 18 December, asking him to stop further construction and remove what was built (para 2).
• When that notice was not complied with, the District Magistrate directed the Town Area Committee to act under Section 186 (para 2).
• Another notice was given on 21 December and was not complied with. Only then was the building demolished, in accordance with law (para 2).
• For these reasons the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages (para 2).
• The judgment records no separate argument by the appellants on the merits in the High Court beyond these pleas.

For the respondent (Prabhu Dayal)

• The defendants demolished the constructions illegally (para 1).
• The notice under Section 186 gave only two hours' time. It did not give the reasonable time contemplated in Section 302 of the Act (para 1).
• Demolition after the notice was bad because the notice was served when he was out of station (para 1).
• The action was mala fide (para 1).
• Preliminary objection: the damages claimed were Rs. 1,000 and the suit was that the Court of Small Causes can hear. So no second appeal lies under Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code (para 5).
• Clause 35(j) did not apply, as the legal process itself was challenged as invalid. The exception covers only cases where the process is legal and the execution alone is illegal (para 5).
• The demolition was not done in accordance with law as the notice did not give reasonable time. So the Municipal Board was liable to pay damages (para 8).
• He suffered injuria because he had a fundamental right to hold and enjoy the property, even though it was built without prior sanction (para 9).

No authorities are named for either side in the judgment.

Court's Reasoning

Hari Swarup, J.

Paragraph numbers below are the judgment's own. It is a single opinion.

1. Noted: This is the defendants' appeal against a suit for compensation for damage caused to the plaintiff by an act of the defendants (para 1).
2. Noted: The plaintiff said the notice under Section 186 of the U. P. Municipalities Act was bad. It gave only two hours and not the reasonable time contemplated in Section 302 (para 1).
3. Noted: The defendants said the constructions broke Sections 178 and 180, the action was not mala fide, and earlier notices had been ignored (para 2).
4. Noted: The trial Court found that the plaintiff built without complying with Section 178 and without sanction under Section 180. It found that the provisions applied to the town area and that, without sanction, the Board could demolish. It found that reasonable time was given because the earlier notice was not complied with (para 3).
5. Noted: The first appellate Court found malicious intention in the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. It said the District Magistrate's order could not legalise the demolition because reasonable time was not given. It held the action high handed (para 4).
6. Noted: The respondents' preliminary objection was that, under Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code, no second appeal lies. The damages claimed were Rs. 1,000 and the suit was said to be that the Court of Small Causes can hear (para 5).
7. Noted: Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act makes all suits that the Court of Small Causes can hear except those in the Second Schedule. Clause 35(j) of that Schedule is relevant. It excludes a suit for compensation for illegal, improper or excessive distress, attachment or search. It also excludes a suit for trespass committed in the illegal or improper execution of distress, search or legal process, or for damage caused by it (para 5).
8. Noted: The present suit is, according to the plaintiff, one for compensation for damage caused by illegal execution of a legal process (para 5).
9. Noted: Counsel argued that Clause 35(j) did not apply because the legal process itself was challenged as invalid. Counsel said it applies only where the process is legal and the execution alone is illegal (para 5).
10. Held: The contention cannot be accepted, because no such distinction can be read into Clause 35(j) (para 5).
11. Why: The Court could not understand why the legislature would exclude one kind of case and not the other. It would exclude a case where the process is legal and only the execution is illegal. Yet it would leave a case where both are illegal to a summary Court. The actual damage in both cases is suffered only by execution of the process. Such suits are of a similar nature and are excluded from the Court of Small Causes (para 5).
12. Held: The suit was not that the Court of Small Causes can hear, and it was rightly filed in the Court of the Munsif. The second appeal lies. The preliminary objection is overruled (para 5).
13. Held: On the merits, the lower appellate Court had completely misdirected itself. The claim was for damages caused by an act of the defendants (para 6).
14. Held: The plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves that he suffered injury because of an illegal act of the defendant, and not otherwise (para 6).
15. Held: "Malice does not enter the scene at all." A legal act, even when motivated by malice, does not make the actor liable to pay damages (para 6).
16. Noted: The Court found support for this in Salmond's observation. Take a landlord who serves a valid notice to quit. He is not liable in tort (a civil wrong). This is so even if he wanted to punish a tenant who gave evidence against him. The source is Salmond on the Law of Torts, Fifteenth Edition, p. 18. The Court's quotation of Salmond is summarised here (para 6).
17. Held: Mere malice of an officer against a citizen who has committed a wrong does not make the authority's action invalid. This holds if the action is otherwise in accordance with law (para 6).
18. Held: Mere malice cannot disentitle a person from turning to law to get a wrong undone. The Court found it unnecessary to investigate whether the action was motivated by malice (para 6).
19. Held: Before the plaintiff can get any damages, he must prove that he suffered an injury. The law does not take into account all harms that caused no legal injury (para 7).
20. Noted: Damage of that kind is called damnum sine injuria (loss without legal injury). It gives the sufferer no right to compensation (para 7).
21. Noted: The term injuria is to be understood in its original and proper sense of wrong (in jus, contrary to law). The source is Salmond on the Law of Torts, p. 17 (para 7).
22. Held: The plaintiff was himself guilty of a wrong. The trial Court found that he gave no notice under Section 178 and obtained no sanction under Section 180. The building adjoins a public street, so notice and sanction were necessary. The appellate Court did not reverse these findings (para 7).
23. Noted: Section 185 punishes anyone who begins, continues or completes the erection of a building, or a material alteration, in breach of the Act. The breach may be no notice under Section 178. It may be a breach of Section 180(5), a Board order refusing sanction, written directions under Section 180, or a bye-law. The punishment is a fine on conviction. The fine may extend to Rs. 1,000 and, without special and adequate reasons, shall not be less than two hundred and fifty rupees (para 7).
24. Noted: Section 186 gives the Board power to demolish a construction whose making is an offence under Section 185 (para 7).
25. Noted: The plaintiff's counsel argued that demolition was not in accordance with law because the notice did not give reasonable time. On that ground he said the Municipal Board was liable for damages (para 8).
26. Held: The notice was served on the 18th and required demolition before the 18th. Such a notice could not be complied with in its terms. That did not authorise the plaintiff to maintain constructions that were illegally made (para 8).
27. Noted: The plaintiff did not appear before the authority to show cause. A fresh notice was given three days later, and the building was demolished afterwards. No objection was made that two hours on the 21st were not enough (para 8).
28. Noted: A complaint that he lost because demolition was done the same day, and would not have lost with more time, "would have been a different matter" (para 8).
29. Held: His case was that he had a right to maintain the building and that the Board's action was mala fide. On that plea the time factor ceases to be of any importance. The notice cannot be said to make the consequential action illegal (para 8).
30. Held: There is no merit in the contention that the plaintiff suffered injuria through the demolition. Counsel said he had a fundamental right to hold and enjoy the property even without sanction (para 9).
31. Held: "There is no right to enjoy property not legally obtained or constructed." (para 9).
32. Why: The law gives a person a right to construct a building, but that right is restricted by enactments such as the U. P. Municipalities Act (para 9).
33. Held: If a person constructs a building illegally, its demolition by the municipal authorities is not injuria to the owner. "No person has the right to enjoy the fruits of an act which is an offence under law." (para 9).
34. Held: The plaintiff failed to prove injuria in the legal sense, so he is not entitled to any compensation (para 10).
35. Held: The lower Court's decree cannot be sustained, even though the plaintiff may have suffered damages (para 10).
36. Held: The appeal is allowed, the lower appellate Court's decree is set aside and the trial Court's decree is restored (para 11).

Authorities

• Salmond on the Law of Torts, Fifteenth Edition, p. 18 (a textbook, not a case). Used for the landlord and notice-to-quit example. A valid act done with a vindictive motive is not actionable (para 6).
• Salmond on the Law of Torts, p. 17. Used for the meaning of injuria as wrong, contrary to law (para 7).
• No decided case is cited in the judgment text.
• Also cited in footnotes: none.

Provisions mentioned

• Section 102, Civil Procedure Code: the respondents relied on it to say no second appeal lies in a small-cause suit (para 5).
• Section 15, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act: makes all suits that the Court of Small Causes can hear except those in the Second Schedule (para 5).
• Clause 35(j), Second Schedule: excludes suits for compensation for illegal distress, attachment or search, and for trespass or damage caused by illegal or improper execution of legal process (para 5).
• Section 178, U. P. Municipalities Act: notice of intention to erect a building (para 2; para 7).
• Section 180: sanction for erecting a building (para 2; para 7).
• Section 185: fine for building without notice or in breach of Section 180, a Board order or a bye-law (para 7).
• Section 186: Board's power to demolish a construction that is an offence under Section 185 (para 1; para 2; para 7).
• Section 302: the reasonable time said to be contemplated for such a notice (para 1).

Judgement

1. The preliminary objection that no second appeal lies is overruled (para 5).
2. The appeal is allowed (para 11).
3. The decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside (para 11).
4. The trial Court's decree, dismissing the suit, is restored (para 11).
5. Costs: in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs (para 11).

Legal Principle / Ratio

• A plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves injury from an illegal act of the defendant. A legal act, even with a malicious motive, does not make the actor liable for damages (para 6).
• Demolition of an illegally built structure by municipal authorities is not injuria to its owner. The owner's loss is damnum sine injuria (paras 7, 9).
• Key holding: "There is no right to enjoy property not legally obtained or constructed." (para 9)
• Observation (possibly obiter): a complaint that the demolition caused loss because too little time was given would be a different matter (para 8).

Significance

• Commentary: the case applies damnum sine injuria, a topic covered in the linked Notes page.
• It shows that malice alone does not make a lawful act a tort. The judgment supports it with a textbook example, not with a decided case.
• It also decides a procedural point. A suit for damage caused by illegal execution of legal process lies outside the Court of Small Causes, so a second appeal is open.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: loss without a legal injury is damnum sine injuria and gives no right to compensation (para 7).
• Rule: malice does not enter the scene when the act itself is legal (para 6).
• Rule: no right to enjoy property not legally constructed, so demolition is not injuria (para 9).
• Rule: Clause 35(j) covers both illegal process and illegal execution. A second appeal therefore lies (para 5).
• Trap: the first appellate Court granted damages because of malice and a short notice. The High Court reversed that and restored the dismissal (paras 4, 6, 8, 11).
• Trap: the High Court did not say short notice is always irrelevant. It said the time factor mattered little on the plea actually made (para 8).
• Trap: the costs order was that each side bears its own costs (para 11).

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The judgment found it unnecessary to investigate whether malice existed. It leaves the first appellate Court's finding of malice untested (para 6).
• The notice of the 18th required demolition before the 18th. The Court found it could not be complied with, yet treated the later notice of the 21st as sufficient (para 8).
• The Court left open a claim based on loss from too little time. It said such a claim would be a different matter, but the plaintiff did not plead it (para 8).
• The judgment records that only defendants 1 to 3 appealed (para 4).

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the judgment text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.