A civic agency in Punjab has landed in trouble for demolishing a marriage hall despite restrictions imposed by a court. The Supreme Court now has held its action “arbitrary” and directed it to reconstruct the hall.

The cost of reconstruction will be recovered from the salaries of officials responsible for the illegal demolition.

A Bench, comprising Justices S B Sinha and Aftab Alam said the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation authorities had arbitrarily demolished the hall, located on Link Road, after issuing vague notices, despite the fact that the original owner Hira Devi had died and an injunction restraining the demolition was pending in the court.

The apex court said the authorities were wrong in claiming that the third notice issued by them in 2001 was final, as Hira Devi had died in 1998.

After initially issuing two notices to Hira Devi, the authorities issued the third notice in her name in 2001, even though she had died and the property was in the possession of her grandson Inderjit Singh.

As per the law, the authorities were supposed to issue fresh notices to Inderjit Singh, which they did not do; instead they demolished the structure despite a court restraining them from doing so.

Inderjit Singh filed an appeal in the High Court, which held the demolition illegal and directed the civic authorities to reconstruct the marriage hall and recover the cost of the construction from the salaries of officials responsible for the illegal demolition.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the Ludhiana municipality filed a special leave petition in the apex court. The apex court, however, concurred with the findings of the High Court and said the municipal authorities should have issued a comprehensive notice explaining in detail the extent of the alleged illegal construction and also informed the district court, which had passed an injunction against the demolition.

“The said notices were also found to be absolutely vague. They did not contain the description of the property in question. Indisputably, they were issued in the name of a dead person. The appellant, furthermore, acted arbitrarily insofar as it demolished the structures, despite pendency of the suit. We would assume that the order of injunction was granted for a limited period, but it is expected of a statutory corporation to thereupon to inform the court about it,” the apex court said while dismissing the appeal.