ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief that by issuing appropriate writ direction or order, order No. 20097 dated 31.3.98. issued by the respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent ,No.1 (Annexure P/16) be quashed; any other relief which is deemed fit be also granted and cost of the petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioners. 2. The facts in the factual mat are that – (a) Two plots bearing No. 10 and 11 situate at Palasia-2-C at Indore admeasuring 40/60 feet equal to 2400 Square feet each were owned by respondent No.1 Corporation. The plots were given on 99 years lease to Dr. Vijay Kumar S/o Dulichand Pipada and Dr. Dulichand S/o Nemichand Pipada, under registered document dated 24.6.68. With the petition. the petitioners have annexed copies of the lease deed as Annexure P/3 and P/4 According to the petitioners, under two registered sale deeds dated 20.184. said Vijay Kumar Pipada and Dr. Dulichand Pipada transferred and sold the said lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners. Copies of the said transfer deeds are available on record as Annexure P/5 and P/6. (b) According to petitioners, on 22.4.97 under inward No.7, they made a request to the respondent-Corporation for transfer of the said lease in their favour. The respondents• were pleased to allow the application and permitted transfer and mutation of the name of the petitioners for rest of the period of lease and issued memo No.4 and 5 on 30.4.97. According to petitioners, they deposited the lease rent for the suit plots. Copies of the memos dated 30.4.97 and the deposit receipts have been filed with the petition as Annexure P/7, P/8. P/9 and P/10 respectively. (c) On 2.5.97, the petitioners moved a joint application for sanction of a building plan for raising construction on the aforesaid plot No. 10 and 11 under inward No. 568. As the petition reads, after full scrutiny the respondents issued sanction letter No. 938, dated 5.6.97 and permitted the petitioners to raise the construction over the aforesaid plots. The said permission was accorded under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1994. Copy of the said sanction is available on record as Annexure P/11. As the petition reads, after full scrutiny the respondents issued sanction letter No. 938, dated 5.6.97 and permitted the petitioners to raise the construction over the aforesaid plots. The said permission was accorded under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1994. Copy of the said sanction is available on record as Annexure P/11. (d) On 13.9.97, the respondent No.2 (Building Officer) issued a memo No. 149 to the petitioners that in view of the order of maintaining status-quo passed by Xth Civil Judge, Class I, Indore on 4.9.97, the petitioners should stop the construction activities. The said memo is marked as Annexure P/12. The petitioners issued a statutory notice under Section 401of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and filed Civil Suit No. 158-A/97 (copy of the order annexed with the petition shows its number as 165-A/97). In the said suit, the petitioners challenged the correctness and validity of said memo No. 13.9.97 and prayed for permanent injunction from the Court of IXth Civil Judge, Class I. Indore. The respondent No.1 and 2 submitted their written statement on 4.12.97 and admitted the grant of lease in pursuance of resolution No. 834, dated 29.2.64. They also admitted the transfer of lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners. They also admitted that vide Dakhila No. 938, dated 5.6.97 (Annexure P/11), sanction was accorded in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have filed plaint of the said civil suit No. 165-A/97 and written statement at Annexure P/13 and P/14. (e) The petitioners in the Civil Suit No. 165-A/97 moved an application seeking a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Reply to the said application was filed by the present respondents. After hearing the parties, the said IXth Civil Judge, Class-I by its order dated 23.1.98 (annexure P/15) granted the injunction, till disposal of the suit, in favour of the petitioners, restraining the respondents from interfering with the said construction work which was being raised by the petitioners in accordance with the said Dakhila No. 938. The learned Civil Judge was also pleased to direct the petitioners to submit an undertaking and also furnish security. According to the petitioners, they had complied with the said order. The learned Civil Judge was also pleased to direct the petitioners to submit an undertaking and also furnish security. According to the petitioners, they had complied with the said order. They further submit that order dated 23.1.98 has not been set aside by any Court nor the respondents have opted to challenge the said order by filing an appeal. (f) The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2, without any authority of law or without hearing the petitioners, issued the impugned memo No. 20097, dated 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16) where under not only he cancelled the said sanction, but also directed the petitioners to stop the construction, and further asked them that they should remove the construction from and over the disputed plots, otherwise the same was to be demolished and removed by the respondents. According to the petitioners, the memo dated 31.3.98 was not only in derogation of the order dated 23.1.98 (Annexure P/15), but showed utter disrespect and disobedience to the said injunction order. (g) By this petition, the petitioners pray that memo dated 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16) being contrary to law deserves to be quashed. (h) In the petition, the petitioners submit that they have not received notice No. 305 dated 2.3.98, it was never served upon the petitioners otherwise they would have sent reply to the same and could have satisfied the respondents that they did not suppress any fact. 3. On these facts the petitioners have filed the petition. 4. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted for hearing. The said notice was issued on 20.4.98 the matter was listed for hearing on 1.7.98, but as name of the counsel for the respondents was not mentioned in the daily cause list, the case was adjourned to 2.7.98. Shri S.J. Dhanji, learned counsel for respondents appeared in the Court. The respondents were directed to file their reply by the next date. Respondents filed their reply on 9.7.98. On 2.7.98, it was also directed that the notice Annexure P/16, issued by respondent No. 2 showed that the issuing authority did not care to take into consideration the injunction order issued by the competent Court, therefore, the said officer should also remain present in the Court. Accordingly the said officer with the complete records appeared in the Court on 9.7.98. On 9.7.98. Accordingly the said officer with the complete records appeared in the Court on 9.7.98. On 9.7.98. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for petitioners argued the matter, the respondents were represented by Shri Anand Agrawal, Advocate. Respondent No.2, as observed above, was present with the records. 5. The respondents in their return have not challenged the material facts. They have accepted the fact that on the strength of two lease deeds, a transfer deed was executed in favour of the present petitioners, and the present petitioners moved an application for transfer of the lease-hold rights. It was also admitted that after the lease was transferred, the lease amount was deposited and thereafter a sanction was granted in favour of the petitioner to raise the constructions. 6. The contention of the respondents in fact is that after verification the Corporation found that the land Plot No. 10 and 11 belong to the Municipal Corporation and the said pieces of land were never leased out in favour of anybody and the original lease deeds were fictitious. According to the Corporation, the Corporation authorities were satisfied that the land continues to belong to the Corporation and by manipulation, it was sought to be transferred in favour of the petitioner's mime. According to the Corporation, the Building Officer issued a show cause notice on 2.3.98, thereafter under Annexure R/2. a police report was also lodged. The Building Officer after ascertaining the true facts, issued the impugned notice on 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16), cancelled the permission and directed them to remove the construction. The Corporation further submits that in relation to the same property, one Ranleshchandra had filed a civil suit against the Corporation which is pending as Civil Suit No. 140-A/94. In the said suit, the trial Court had granted an interim order in favour of said Rameshchandra. In view of the said order. the Corporation issued the letter dated 13.9.97 when the petitioners tried to raise certain constructions over the plots. Filing of the Civil Suit No.165-A/97 and grant of injunction in the said suit has not been denied. The respondents contend that as validity of memo dated 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16) is subject matter of MJC No. 4/98, which is pending before the IX Civil Judge. Class I, this petition does not lie. They submit that the respondents were justified in issuing order dated 31.3.98. 7. The respondents contend that as validity of memo dated 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16) is subject matter of MJC No. 4/98, which is pending before the IX Civil Judge. Class I, this petition does not lie. They submit that the respondents were justified in issuing order dated 31.3.98. 7. Shri Sethi, learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of the order passed in Civil Suit, which stands as it is, as the respondents have not proposed to challenge the said order, the respondents are bound by the said order. He submits that on face of the injunction order, memo like Annexure P /16 could not be issued. He further submits that no notice alleging forged lease deeds was ever issued to the petitioners nor the question was ever enquired into after affording proper opportunity to the petitioners, therefore. the said memo is illegal and deserves to be quashed. He further submits that neither under Rule 11 nor under Rule 25 of M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules. the sanction could be quashed. His further submission is that the respondents having preferred not to challenge the injunction order, cannot act contrary to the said injunction order. Regarding pendency of the M.J.C., he contended that after filing of the present writ petition, the M.J.C. was filed on the same day. therefore, there was no suppression of facts. He further submits that in the said M.J.C., he is seeking the relief that the respondents deserve to be punished, but in the present petition, the petitioners seek quashment of Annexure P/16. According to him. the relief's claimed in these two proceedings are separate and distinct. 8. Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on 2.3.98, notice was issued to the petitioners, it was served on their watchman. despite service the petitioners did not choose to appear before the Corporation authorities, therefore, left with no option and as the Corporation authorities were satisfied that the original lease deeds were forged, they were Justified in issuing the memo dated 31.3.98. He further submitted that on the part of the Corporation, they have not challenged the injunction order, but one Yunus has challenged the said order, therefore, the injunction order is still sub-judice. He, however, admits that the respondents have not filed copy of appeal memo or any other document to show that the said appeal is pending. 9. I have heard the parties at length. 10. He, however, admits that the respondents have not filed copy of appeal memo or any other document to show that the said appeal is pending. 9. I have heard the parties at length. 10. The documents would clearly show that under Annexure P/3 lease deed for plot No.10 admeasuring 60/40 feet equal to 2400 square feet was executed in favour of Vijay Kumar Pipada, Annexure P/4 would show that for plot No.11 admeasuring 60/40 feet equal to 2400 square feet, lease deed was executed in favour of Dr. Dulichand Pipada. The said deeds were executed on 24.6.68, the said deeds have been signed by Vijay Kumar and Dr. Dulichand Pipada respectively and have been counter signed by Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. The respondents contend that these lease deeds are forged. I am unable to accept the argument. There is nothing on the record to show or suggest that the said lease deeds were not executed by the less-or and the lessees The lease deeds have been signed by the Commissioner. Indore Municipal Corporation the said documents are registered documents Ordinarily, it is not expected that the Registrar of documents would register such a forged document. On back of the documents all the official seals are available. The thumb impressions are not available on the back of the documents but the Registrar has affixed a seal that the party has been exempted from affixing the thumb impression. Ordinarily it is not expected from a Registrar that he would permit a forged document to be registered which is in the name of Commissioner of the Corporation. It is expected of the Registrar that he would make proper enquiries before registration of a document. The said two documents are said to have been registered on 24.6.68. The photo copies filed before this Court clearly show that the copies are of the registered documents and there appears to be nothing fishy about the said documents. 10A. Annexure P/5 and P/6 are not in dispute before me. Under Annexure P/5, the lease-hold rights have been transferred by Vijay Kumar Pipada in favour of Shailendra Chhajed, and under Annexure P/6 the lease-hold rights have been transferred by Dr. Dulichand in favour of Dharmendra Chhajed. There is no dispute before me that under these documents, the lease-hold rights could be transferred. Under Annexure P/5, the lease-hold rights have been transferred by Vijay Kumar Pipada in favour of Shailendra Chhajed, and under Annexure P/6 the lease-hold rights have been transferred by Dr. Dulichand in favour of Dharmendra Chhajed. There is no dispute before me that under these documents, the lease-hold rights could be transferred. Again there is no dispute that by order dated 30.4.97, the lease-hold rights were transferred by the Corporation authorities in favour of the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that vide Annexure P/9 and P/10, the lease amount was deposited by the present petitioners and the said money was received by the Corporation without any protest. It is also not in dispute that under Dakhila No. 938, dated 5.6.97, the petitioners were granted the building construction permission. It is also not in dispute that on 13997, the Corporation issued a notice to the petitioners to stop the construction work and that thereafter the petitioners have filed civil suit No. 165-A/97. It is also not in dispute before me that on 23.1.98, the IXth Civil Judge, Class I granted an injunction order in favour of the petitioners subject to the conditions as contained in the said order. It is also not in dispute that vide Annexure P/16, dated 31.3.98, the Building Officer issued the notice, recalled the sanction, directed the petitioners to remove the construction and further informed that if the construction is not removed by the petitioners, the respondents would remove the construction. The dispute in fact is in relation to the notice to the petitioners. 11. The original record has been produced before this Court. On page No. 148, copy of notice No. 305 is available. It is said to have been issued on 2.3.98. In the date column, there is a visible over-writing. If the letter was issued on 2.3.98, then there was no good reason for some over-writing in the said document. The respondents contended before the Court that the notice was given to some watchman. There is some endorsement on the said notice. Some Shankargir has put his signatures and below the signatures, he has written. **pkSdhnkj dks fn;k** Signatures of the person receiving are not to be seen on the said notice. The respondents contended before the Court that the notice was given to some watchman. There is some endorsement on the said notice. Some Shankargir has put his signatures and below the signatures, he has written. **pkSdhnkj dks fn;k** Signatures of the person receiving are not to be seen on the said notice. When this Court made a query to the respondent No.2 and the counsel who was appearing for the respondents as to why the said notice was sent to the place of construction when the Corporation knew the address of the attorney and the address of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that copy of the notice dated 2.3.98 was sent to the petitioners at their Ratlam address. In support of his contention, he has cited page No. 170 and 171 of the said record. He submits that the notice was dated 2.3.98 but its copy was sent on 7.3.98. I have perused the said two documents. I am sorry to record that the statement made before this Court by the Corporation is not untrue, but is a false statement. On page No. 170, we find receipt No. 1926 issued by the post office. On the back of the said receipt, one can clearly see that the said notice was dispatched on 16.3.98. If the notice was sent on 16.3.98, it cannot be gain said before the Court or to mislead the Court that it was sent on 7.3.98. It is unfortunate that an authority like Indore Municipal Corporation is raising false pleading and is making false statements in the Court. Page number 171 is copy of the notice number 305. It is said to have been dispatched on 7.3.98 at serial No. 396. It we refer to page No.2 of the said notice (page No. 172 of the file), we would fid that the said notice has been typed on 11.3.98. There would be no difficulty in finding that some Mehta had typed the notice and below his name, he has typed 11.3.98. If these figures are deciphered, it would mean 11.3.98 because in many other documents including page No. 148, we can find that some Mehta has the habit of typing his name and just below his name, he types the date. If the notice was typed on 11.3.98, it could not be dated 2.3.98 nor could it be issued on 7.3.98. If these figures are deciphered, it would mean 11.3.98 because in many other documents including page No. 148, we can find that some Mehta has the habit of typing his name and just below his name, he types the date. If the notice was typed on 11.3.98, it could not be dated 2.3.98 nor could it be issued on 7.3.98. The cat is out of the bag, when we see the postal receipt which shows that the notice was sent on 16.3.98. The man may lie, but the circumstances would expose him. From the facts, it would clearly appear that notice dated 2.3.98 was never sent to the petitioners. I have no hesitation in holding that the endorsement made on the document at Page No. 148 is also forged. If Shankargir had given the notice to the watchman, then it would be his duty to obtain the signatures of the said watchman. The Courts ordinarily rely upon the official records maintained by the Corporation, but when the things precipitate on the surface and stink then the Court has to make a deeper probe. Notice dated 31.3.98 is said to have been supplied to one Goswami Chaukidar, the said Shankar has again signed it and below his signatures, we can find signatures of Goswami Chaukidar. If on 31.3.98, the notice server/jamadar was vigilant enough to obtain the signatures of said Goswami Chaukidar, nothing prevented him from obtaining the signatures of said Chaukidar on the alleged notice dated 2.3.98. I am unable to hold that notice dated 2.3.98 was in-fact issued on 2.3.98. I am also unable to hold that notice dated 2.3.98 was sent on 7.3.98 at the residence of the petitioners. On the other hand, I hold that the notice dated 2.3.98 was not issued in time, it was never sought to be served on the petitioners, it was not served upon the watchman, and the notice was not sent at the residence of the petitioners on 7.3.98, but in-fact the notice was forged on 11.3.98 and was dispatched on 16.3.98. 12. On a query made by the Court regarding service of the notice by registered post, the Building Officer present in the Court submitted that if some time was given to him, he would produce the copy of the postal acknowledgement. 12. On a query made by the Court regarding service of the notice by registered post, the Building Officer present in the Court submitted that if some time was given to him, he would produce the copy of the postal acknowledgement. He clearly admitted that had he received the copy of the postal acknowledgement, he would have placed the same in this very file. After going through the whole file, he admitted that the postal acknowledgments are not available in the said file. These facts would clearly show that without awaiting the postal acknowledgements, the order dated 31.3.98 has been issued. It is not expected from an authority that it would not wait for the postal acknowledgement and would proceed to pass any order. Once it was held desirable that a registered notice be issued, then the authority was duty bound to wait for the postal acknowledgement. 13. This Court made a query from the Building Officer that on what grounds the sanction was cancelled. The Counsel for the Corporation and the Building Officer submitted before the Court that notice dated 2.3.98 was issued to the other side on the grounds that they were raising certain constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan. Notice dated 2.3.98 would show that the Corporation authorities found certain illegal constructions. The said notice nowhere showed that the Corporation authorities were willing to take an action on the foundation of forged lease deeds. The notice dated 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16) records that the notice dated 2.3.98 was served upon the notice. It further reads that the lease deeds were forged. It further reads that certain illegal constructions were raised which were contrary to the sanctioned plan therefore, the Building Officer was cancelling the said sanction under Rule 11(1) and Rule 25 of M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules. In the last paragraph of the said notice, it is further mentioned that as there was no valid sanction III favour of the petitioners, they were required to stop the construction and remove the same. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents contends that the sanction was recalled because the petitioners were raising illegal constructions. He submits that this Court may ignore the ground of forged lease deeds. In the opinion of this Court, this cannot be done. The notice dated 31.3.98 is to be read as a whole. It provides two foundations for cancelling the sanction. He submits that this Court may ignore the ground of forged lease deeds. In the opinion of this Court, this cannot be done. The notice dated 31.3.98 is to be read as a whole. It provides two foundations for cancelling the sanction. Firstly that the construction made on the spot was contray to the sanctioned plan and the title deeds were forged. We do not know, what would have been the attitude of the Buidling Officer if the forgery relating to the documents was not taken into consideration by him. Annexure P/16 would show approach of the mind. It would show that what persuaded the Building Officer to cancel the sanction. On one side, the notice dated 2.3.98 was not served on the petitioners, forged entries have been made by the respondents and in document dated 31.3.98 they rely upon the notice dated 2.3.98 to make a false assertion that the registered A.D. notices were served upon the petitioners. If we ignore the later part of the notice, then it can clearly be recorded that without issuing a notice or without serving a legal notice on the petitioners, the notice dated 31.3.98 was issued. The notice dated 31.3.98 (Annexure P/16) if is read as a whole, it would not show that the sanction was withdrawn or cancelled on the strength of the first charge alone. The third paragraph clearly uses the words **mijksDr of.kZr dkj.kksa ls** This language would show that there were more than one reasons. For the first, no notice was served on the petitioners, and for the second, we find no mention in notice dated 2.3.98. The whole action taken by the respondents is not simply contrary to law or illegal, but is bad, and what is bad cannot be approved by the Court of law. 14. It was not disputed before me that injunction order dated 23.1.98 has not been challenged by them before any Court of law. They simply say that the said order has been challenged by one Yunus before the appellate Court. I am unable to understand as to how submission of an appeal by some Yunus can be taken of any assistance by the Corporation authorities. The Corporation from its conduct has accepted the said interim order and has bound itself by its terms. They simply say that the said order has been challenged by one Yunus before the appellate Court. I am unable to understand as to how submission of an appeal by some Yunus can be taken of any assistance by the Corporation authorities. The Corporation from its conduct has accepted the said interim order and has bound itself by its terms. So long as the said order is in force, the respondents have no authority to act contrary to the said order. 15. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 299 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It refers to powers of Commissioner to direct modification of a sanctioned plan of a building before its completion. According to Section 299, the Commissioner may before any work has been commenced in pursuance of any permission granted by it under Section 293, revoke such permission and may give fresh permission in lieu thereof on such conditions which arc in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This power can be exercised by the Commissioner or his delegate before the work commences. Undisputedly in the present matter, the work has already commenced, the respondents could not exercise the powers under Section 299. According to rule 11(1) of M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, when the Building Officer at any stage of the construction is of the opinion that the construction is not proceeding according to the sanctioned plan or is in violation of any of the provisions of the rules or any other law for the time being in force, then he may issue orders stopping the construction. In the present case, notice dated 2.3.98 was issued under Rule 11 (1), but unfortunately it was never served upon the petitioners. According to Rule 25, a sanction can be recalled if it is brought to the notice of the authonty that the applicant had made certain false statements or had made misrepresentations or suppressed material facts in the application for sanction. As observed above, no notice under Rule 25 was given to the petitioners. Even otherwise, it would not appear from the records that petitioners ever made any misrepresentation inviting penalty under Rule 25. It is for the first time after grant of the sanction by the Corporation authorities, it came to their notice that the alleged lease deeds were forged. As observed above, no notice under Rule 25 was given to the petitioners. Even otherwise, it would not appear from the records that petitioners ever made any misrepresentation inviting penalty under Rule 25. It is for the first time after grant of the sanction by the Corporation authorities, it came to their notice that the alleged lease deeds were forged. If the Corporation authorities did not know about the fact, it could not be expected from a transferee of the lease hold rights that he would learn or know that the original lease deeds were forged. In any case, Rule 25 could be applied if it could be held that the petitioners had the fullest knowledge about the forged lease deeds and suppressing the material facts, he made false statements and made misrepresentations to suit his purposes and obtained the sanction. I am unable to hold that the memo/order/notice dated 31.3.98 is in accordance with law. Neither proper notices were issued. nor proper opportunity was ever granted to the petitioners to submit their case and cause before the Corporation authorities. 16. The respondent-Corporation is party in Civil Suit No. 165-A/97. If they have not proposed to challenge the correctness or validity of the Order dated 23.1.98, then they are bound by the said order. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Civil Judge was justified in granting the order in said civil suit No.165-A/97 in favour of the present petitioners. It is not expected of the Corporation that so long as the said suit is pending they would interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the said property or would interfere with the constructions raised by them in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The learned Civil Judge has already taken care of the rights of the respondents by taking an undertaking and security for Rs. Four Lacs. 17. The petition deserves to and is accordingly allowed. Memo Annexure P/16, dated 31.3.98 bearing No. 20097 is quashed. 18. The petition to the extent indicated above and with the observations made aforesaid is allowed. Though at one point of time, I wanted to impose exemplary cost on the respondents and wanted to direct their prosecution, but on a second thought, I am of the opinion that the parties should be left to their own legal remedies. 18. The petition to the extent indicated above and with the observations made aforesaid is allowed. Though at one point of time, I wanted to impose exemplary cost on the respondents and wanted to direct their prosecution, but on a second thought, I am of the opinion that the parties should be left to their own legal remedies. I only hope and expect from the respondents that they would not create, concoct, manufacture or forge documents to show that they are acting in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to cost.