Property Ownership or Tenancy Dispute Can’t Stall Action Under Section 152 BNSS to Vacate Dangerous Building, Says MP High Court
In a significant ruling prioritising public safety over private property disputes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that pending disputes regarding ownership, title or tenancy cannot be used to obstruct preventive action under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when authorities determine that a building poses an imminent threat to human life and safety. The Court observed that preventive powers exercised to avert danger are distinct from civil proceedings deciding proprietary or tenancy rights, and the two cannot be conflated.
The case arose after occupants of a building challenged notices directing them to vacate premises declared unsafe by the municipal authorities. The petitioners argued that their ownership and tenancy claims were pending before competent civil forums and that coercive action to remove them could not be taken until those disputes were finally adjudicated. They contended that eviction without determination of their civil rights would be arbitrary and illegal.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that Section 152 BNSS is a preventive measure intended to maintain public order and protect human life, not a mechanism for deciding civil rights over immovable property. The Bench observed that where authorities form a bona fide opinion that continued occupation of a structure poses a serious risk to its occupants or the public, they are empowered to take immediate steps to avert the danger irrespective of pending ownership or tenancy litigation.
The Court clarified that questions relating to title, possession, landlord-tenant relationships or contractual rights remain within the jurisdiction of civil courts and can be pursued independently. However, those disputes cannot become a shield against statutory measures taken to prevent accidents or loss of life arising from dangerous structures. Public safety, the Court emphasized, must prevail where there is credible material indicating an imminent threat.
While declining to interfere with the authorities’ action, the High Court stressed that statutory safeguards, including issuance of notice, an opportunity to raise objections where feasible, and compliance with the applicable municipal law, must still be observed. The authorities, the Court said, are expected to act fairly and strictly within the framework of law while ensuring that hazardous buildings do not endanger residents or passers-by.
The ruling reinforces the principle that civil disputes over ownership or tenancy cannot paralyse emergency measures undertaken in the interest of public safety. By drawing a clear distinction between adjudication of private property rights and preventive action under the BNSS, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the protection of human life remains the foremost consideration when dealing with structurally dangerous buildings.
