July 3, 2024
DU LLBLaw of TortsSemester 1

Town area committee V Prabhu dayal AIR 1975 All. 132 Case Analysis

Facts

  • The plaintiff made certain construction without complying with the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The defendants demolished the construction.
    • The plaintiff sued the defendants contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the Town Area Committee were acting maliciously in getting the construction demolished.
  • The Allahabad High Court held that the demolition of a building illegally constructed was perfectly lawful. The Court did not investigate the question whether the act was done maliciously or not as the same was considered to be irrelevant

Principles

  • Damnum sine injuria – Damage without injury
  • Act of plaintiff must be legal to get Damnum sine injuria

No person has the right to enjoy the fruits of an act which is an offence under law.

  • Eminent domain
  • Hari swaroop – Judge

The plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves to have suffered injury because of an illegal act of the defendant and not

  • otherwise.
  • Malice does not enter the scene at all.
  • A legal act, though motivated by malice, will not make the action liable to pay damages…………………………………………………. merely because

some officer has malice against a citizen who has committed a wrong will not render the action of the authority invalid if it is otherwise in accordance with law. Mere malice cannot disentitle a person from taking recourse to law for getting the wrong undone. It is, therefore, not necessary to investigate whether the action was motivated by malice or not.

Related posts

General Exceptions

Dharamvir S Bainda

Carllil vs carbolic smoke balls Case Analysis

Dharamvir S Bainda

State of West Bengal v.Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241

vikash Kumar

Leave a Comment