IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.848 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.4680/2008]

Salvation Army … Appellant

Vs.

A.Subbian & Ors. … Respondents

With

Civil Appeal No.849 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.8560 of 2008]  

Civil Appeal No.850 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7973 of 2008]

O R D E R

Leave granted. We will refer to the facts and rank of the parties with  

reference to the first matter.

2. The appellant is an international charitable organization helping the  

poor. It came forward to construct 44 houses for the tsunami victims of 26th  

December 2004, and entered into a memorandum of understanding dated  

1

3.3.2006 with the Collector, Nagapattinam, in that behalf. Out of 44 houses  

financed by the appellant, 15 houses were constructed by the local villagers  

and the remaining 29 houses by a contractor under the supervision of the  

support  group  constituted  by  the  District  Collector.  All  the  houses  were  

constructed  at  Uzhavar  Street,  North  Poigainallur,  Nagapattinam District,  

and were duly inspected and approved for occupation. Almost all the houses  

have been occupied. The fifteen appellants in the two connected appeals are  

the  allottees  of  some of  those  houses  who  have  been  issued  occupancy  

certificates and residing therein.

3. A public interest litigation was filed by the first respondent alleging  

that the houses constructed by the appellant were sub-standard, unsafe and  

unfit for human habitation, posing a threat to the occupants. He therefore  

sought a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu and District Collector to take  

action  against  the  appellant  and  a  further  direction  to  monitor  the  

construction by the appellant.  

4. The  High  Court  appointed  a  two-member  Expert  Committee  to  

inspect the quality of construction. The Committee submitted a report dated  

4.1.2008  recommending  demolition  of  all  the  houses  constructed  by  the  

appellant as not fit for occupation, opining that they were likely to collapse  

2

in the event of an earthquake or a tsunami. Acting on the said report, the  

High Court passed the impugned order dated 10.1.2008 allowing the writ  

petition and directed the appellant to demolish all the houses and remove the  

debris at its cost. The High Court also directed the state government and the  

District  Collector  to  take  possession  of  the  land  where  the  houses  were  

constructed and construct proper quality houses or allot other suitable houses  

to each of the 44 families within two months. The said order is challenged in  

these appeals by special leave by the appellant. The order is also challenged  

by fifteen of the occupants of the houses, in the connected two appeals.  

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it had only charity in  

mind when it constructed the houses and had financed the construction in  

terms of the Memorandum of Understanding;  that  the actual  construction  

was  carried  out  under  the  supervision  of  a  committee  appointed  by  the  

District Collector; and that if any of the occupants point out any defect in  

construction or any defect which is likely to affect the safety of the houses, it  

is willing to rectify the same at its own cost. It is submitted that the direction  

for demolition was unwarranted.  

3

6. Most of the houses are occupied by allottees and none of the allottees  

were impleaded as parties or heard in the matter. As the houses were already  

under occupation of the allottees, any direction for demolition thereof or any  

direction for shifting them to any other place would prejudicially affect them  

and therefore, the occupants ought to have been heard in the matter. They  

were  not  heard  as  they  were  not  made  parties  to  the  writ  petition.  The  

occupants (appellants in the two other appeals) have stated that they have no  

grievance  with  the  construction  and  do  not  want  their  houses  to  be  

demolished. Secondly when the court received the Report dated 4.1.2008 of  

the   Expert  Committee  appointed  by  it  to  examine  the  condition  of  the  

houses, it ought to have made it available to the appellant so that it could  

have responded to it,  before acting upon the said report.  The High Court  

allowed the writ petition immediately after the report was received without  

giving  an  opportunity  to  the  appellant  to  make  its  submissions  on  it.  A  

careful  reading of the report  shows that there is no danger of the houses  

collapsing in the normal course and the opinion is that they are likely to  

collapse only in the event of earthquake or tsunami. On the other hand, the  

Shelter Advisory Group consisting of four experts while agreeing that the  

construction  is  defective,  has  differed  with  the  opinion  of  the  Expert  

Committee that the houses should be demolished. The Advisory Group has  

4

suggested that the houses could be retro-fitted with specialized interventions  

and made safe as per the requirements. It has pointed out that retro-fitting  

will  be  more  advantageous  as  it  can  make  the  houses  safe  as  per  the  

guidelines  and requirements;  and can be faster  to  implement,  apart  from  

being cost effective. It is stated anything inferior or defective does not call  

for demolition automatically, if other effective alternatives are available.  

7. Under the guidelines issued by the state government, each house had  

to be constructed at a cost of only Rs.50,000/-, though the appellant was in  

fact  ready to offer even more for the construction. The houses had to be  

constructed with a sense of urgency, to provide accommodation. Some of the  

constructions were carried out by the affected villagers themselves and some  

through a contractor. In these circumstances, some defects are inevitable. In  

the circumstances, the suggestion of the Shelter  Advisory Group that the  

houses should be repaired and retro-fitted to make them compliant with the  

safety  requirements  and  to  remove  the  defects,  appears  to  be  more  

reasonable and a better course than demolition.  On a careful consideration,  

we are of the view that the direction to the appellant to demolish the 44  

houses  constructed  by  it  for  the  benefit  of  tsunami  victims,  was  

inappropriate and unwarranted.  

5

8. We therefore  allow these  appeals,  set  aside  the  order  of  the  High  

Court  and  dispose  of  the  first  respondent’s  PIL  with  the  following  

directions:  

(i) The appellant is permitted to carry out repairs and retrofitting in the  

44 houses at its own cost, within a period of six months, as agreed by it.

(ii) The  District  Collector  shall  have  the  44  houses  inspected  after  

repairs/retrofitting, by an expert team, to find out whether they are safe and  

compliant with the guidelines/requirements.   

(iii) If  any  of  the  houses  is  found  to  be  unsafe  or  unfit  for  human  

occupation,  even after  such repairs  and retrofitting,  the District  Collector  

may take such steps, including demolition, if necessary.  

……………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ………………………….J. January 21, 2011. (A K Patnaik)

6