July 1, 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

UNIT 2: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONIndian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996SC 1446

vikash Kumar

Rajendra Kumar Verma V State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 MP 131 Case Analysis

Dharamvir S Bainda

James Martin v State of Kerala 2004

Dharamvir S Bainda

Leave a Comment