Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 807 (MP)

Municipal Corporation v. Anil Kak

2003-07-03

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
ORDER A.K. Gohil, J. 1. Being aggrieved by order dated 21-3-2002 passed by XIIth ADJ, Indore in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40/2001, arising out of the order passed on an injunction application filed by the plaintiff, by which the Trial Court granted injunction on 16,000 sq. ft. and in appeal by impugned order the Lower Appellate Court granted injunction on the entire construction, the Municipal Corporation initially had preferred a Civil Revision under Section 115, CPC, which has now been converted into a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by order 12-5-2003. 2. The following facts of case are not disputed, as per the synopsis jointly submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties :-- 11-8-98 : Lease agreement exercised by Sushri Sushilaraje in favour of plaintiff Anil Kak in respect of 4.8 acres of land situated at Khasra No. 60, Village Tejpur Gadbadi, Indore for a period of 10 years. The lease was renewable. Monthly rent of Rs. 1 lakh was payable by July, 1999. 15-8-88 & 21-11-98 : Letters written by Sushri Sushilaraje to plaintiff Anil Kak giving option to renew lease for a further period of 10 years. 12-4-99 : Sushri Sushilaraje applied for building permission for construction on block Nos. A & B. 13-5-99 : The Municipal Corporation, Indore granted building permission vide Dakhla number 380 (Annexure P-7) for construction on block Nos. A and B. Total permission granted on 2515 sq. metre = 21982 sq. ft. 2-8-99 : The competent authority Urban Land Ceiling, Indore vide Annexure P-8 directed Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore that since the land bearing Survey No. 60 situated at Tejpur Gadbadi, Indore belonging to Sushri Sushilaraje is under Urban Land Ceiling and the case of assessment is pending and the discussion proceedings before the SDO are also under revision/review, therefore, the plan of land can not be sanctioned. 24-9-99 : By letter (Annexure P-9), the Municipal Corporation, Indore cancelled the building permission which was granted by Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 on the basis of the objection raised by competent authority, Urban Land: Ceiling, Indore vide its letter dated 2-8-99 (Annexure P-8). 15-10-99 : Sushri Sushilaraje executed one registered lease deed in favour of Anil Kak in respect of land admeasuring 16,000 sq. ft. 15-10-99 : Sushri Sushilaraje executed one registered lease deed in favour of Anil Kak in respect of land admeasuring 16,000 sq. ft. out of the total land of 4.80 acres bearing Khasra No. 60 situated at Village Tejpur Gadbadi, Indore. 1-2-2001 : The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning vide Annexure P-10 sanctioned site plan of Sushri Sushilaraje. 8-3-2001 : Sushri Sushilaraje vide Annexure P-11 again applied for building permission to Municipal Corporation, Indore. 29-5-2001 : Vide Dakhla No. 160 (Annexure P-12) the Municipal Corporation, Indore granted conditional building permission on plot area of 26466 sq. metres and allowed total construction on 5553.74 sq. metres. 29-5-2001 : Sushri Sushilaraje Holkar vide Annexure P-14 submitted objections to Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Indore that she had not applied for any building permission and permission under Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 was obtained on the forged document and her signatures were also forged. 2-6-2001 : The Municipal Corporation, Indore cancelled building permission No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure P-15). 28-6-2001 : Vide Annexure P-16 plaintiff Anil Kak applied to the Building Officer of Municipal Corporation, Indore for grant of building permission along with map (Annexure P-17). 4-7-2001 : Sushri Sushilaraje filed objections (Annexure P-18) before Building Officer that permission for construction be not granted on plaintiff's application dated 28-6-2001. 8-8-2001 ; In Civil Suit No. 98-A/2001 VIth ADJ, Indore granted injunction (Annexure R-3) in favour of Anil Kak to the effect that defendant Sushri Sushilaraje Holkar shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on land bearing Survey No. 60 situated at Village Tejpur Gadbadi, Indore admeasuring area of 4.8 acres, otherwise then in accordance with law and in case of any transfer by defendant the rights of the plaintiff shall remain protected under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the prayer against transfer, sale or alienation was refused. 13-8-2001 : Sushri Sushilaraje submitted objections (Annexure R-15) before the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore seeking cancellation of approval of site plan dated 1-2-2001. 28-8-2001 : The Municipal Corporation, Indore issued show-cause notice No. 349, dated 28-8-2001 (Annexure R-19) to Sushri Sushilaraje Holkar regarding cancellation of Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001. 28-8-2001 : By letter No. 354 (Annexure P-19 = R-14), the Municipal Corporation rejected application dated 28-6-2001 filed by Anil Kak for building permission. 28-8-2001 : The Municipal Corporation, Indore issued show-cause notice No. 349, dated 28-8-2001 (Annexure R-19) to Sushri Sushilaraje Holkar regarding cancellation of Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001. 28-8-2001 : By letter No. 354 (Annexure P-19 = R-14), the Municipal Corporation rejected application dated 28-6-2001 filed by Anil Kak for building permission. 30-8-2001 : Shri Anil Kak submitted reply (Annexure R-12) of the show-cause notice No. 349 which was issued to Sushri Sushilaraje. 5-9-2001 : Temporary injunction granted in COS No. 98-A/2001 on 8-8-2001 by VIth ADJ, Indore was clarified and observed that on the. basis of pleadings in Paras 3 and 9 of the suit, injunction was granted upto the limit of the relief claimed about school building of 16,000 sq. ft. and not on the entire land. 12-9-2001 : The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore vide Annexure P-20 cancelled the permission granted for land development on 1-2-2001 by Annexure P-10. 8-9-2001 : Respondent No. 1 Anil Kak filed present civil suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of 9th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore, which was registered as COS No. 171-A/2001 and prayed therein for a relief of declaration that it is a case of deemed permission on his application for building permission dated 28-6-2001. 8-9-2001 : Respondent No. 1 Anil Kak filed present civil suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of 9th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore, which was registered as COS No. 171-A/2001 and prayed therein for a relief of declaration that it is a case of deemed permission on his application for building permission dated 28-6-2001. Along with the suit the plaintiff also filed an application under Section 94, CPC read with Section 151, CPC for grant of temporary injunction in his favour and in the said suit and application claimed the following relief :-- Relief sought in Suit : ^^v- oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh mn?kks"k.kk dh tkos fd oknh }kjk fnukad 28&6&2001 dks okafNr Hkou fuekZ.k vuqKk dh iqu% Lohfr fu;r le;kof/k lekfIr ds i'pkr Hkh izfroknhx.k }kjk vLohr ugha fd;s tkus ls okafNr Hkou fuekZ.k vuqKk /kkjk 295 3 e-iz- uxj ikfydk fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 vuqlkj fuf.kZr Lohd`fr (deemed sanction) gksdj izfroknhx.k oknh dks Lohr ekufp= vfoyEc izsf"kr djsaA c- oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh mn/kksf"k.kk tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknh - 2 }kjk izsf"kr i= - 354 fnukad 28&8&2001 izek.k 'kwU; gksdj fujLruh; gSA l- oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd losZ - 60 xzke rstiqj xM+cM+h] bUnkSj fLFkr Hkwfe ij nk[kyk - 160 fnukad 29&5&2001 vuqlkj izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z dks izfroknhx.k u rks Lo;a vkSj u gh fdlh vU; O;fDr ds ek/;e ls gVk;s] rksM+s ,oa u gh fd;s tk jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ck/kk mRiUu djsaA** Relief sought in application : ^^vr% Jheku ls lfou; fuosnu gS fd lnj vkosnu Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ,oa izfrizkFkhZ ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tk;s fd losZ - 60 xzke rstiqj] xM+cM+h] bUnkSj fLFkr Hkwfe ij nk[kyk - 160 fnukad 29&5&2001 vuqlkj izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z dks izfrizkFkhZx.k u rks Lo;a vkSj u gh fdlh vU; O;fDr ds ek/;e ls gVk;sa] rksM+sa ;k mlesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ck/kk mRiUu djsaA** The Trial Court by order dated 17-10-2001 decided the said injunction application of the plaintiff Anil Kak and also decided MJC No. 201/2001, which was filed by Sushri Sushilaraje against the Municipal Corporation, Indore wherein she had prayed that the Corporation should not sanction the map of the land owned by the plaintiff and should not permit the further construction or use of the same for educational purposes and should not also issue completion certificate and passed the following order :-- ^^13- vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwa fd oknh viuk izkFkZuk i= vkaf'kd :i ls izekf.kr djus esa lQy jgk gSA QyLo:i oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk okn ds vfUre fujkdj.k rd ds fy;s tkjh dh tkrh gS fd izfroknhx.k] oknh }kjk 16000 oxZQhV dh Hkwfe ij fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z esa tc rd mHk; i{k ds e/; LoRo ds fookn dk fujkdj.k ugha gks tkrk] rc rd dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha djsaA fdUrq oknh }kjk fnukad 28&6&2001 dks izLrqr ekufp= ds vk/kkj ij oknh us tks Hkh fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS] og oS/kkfud fuek.kZ dk;Z ugha gS bl dkj.k mijksDr fuekZ.k dk;Z ds laca/k esa izfroknhx.k vko';d dk;Zokgh djus gsrq oS/kkfud :i ls Lora= gSA 14- izfroknh - 3 lqJh lq'khykjkts gksYdj }kjk Hkh mijksDr Hkwfe ij fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z] tks oknh }kjk fMfeax izko/kkuksa ds rjg fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa ,d fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k nk;j fd;k gS] tks izdj.k ekad 201@2001 ij ntZ gS] dk Hkh fujkdj.k bl vkns'k ls gks tkrk gS rFkk mDr ,e-ts-lh- izdj.k esa izfroknh - 3 lqJh lq'khykjkts gksYdj }kjk pkgh xbZ lgk;rk fd uxj ikfyd fuxe] bUnkSj ds le{k Hkou vf/kdkjh oknh dks nkfo;k Hkwfe ij vkxkeh fuekZ.k dk;Z gsrq dksbZ ekufp= Lohr ugha djs] fd lgk;rk Hkh izfroknh - 3 dks izkIr gks tkrh gSA vr% oknh mijksDr 16000 oxZQhV dh Hkwfe ij fd;s x;s fuekZ.k ds vykok vc vU; fdlh Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k dk;Z ekufp= fnukad 28&6&2001 ds vuqlkj ugh adjsa vkSj u gh izfroknh uxj ikfyd fuxe] bUnkSj ds le{k Hkou vf/kdkjh mijksDr Hkwfe dks NksM+dj vU; fdlh Hkwfe ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa oknh vFkok fdlh vU; O;fDr ds i{k esa ekufp= Lohr djsaA** 3. Against the aforesaid order dated 17-10-2001, passed by the Trial Court in COS No. 171-A/2001 and MJC No. 201/2001, plaintiff Anil Kak preferred two appeals which were registered as MA Nos. 40/2001 and 44/2001 and Sushri Sushilaraje also preferred MA No. 43/2001 against the same order dated 17-10-2001. The learned Appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 21-3-2002 allowed the MA Nos. 40/2001 and 44/2001 filed by Shri Kak and dismissed Appeal No. 43/2001 filed by Sushri Sushilaraje and passed the following order :-- ^^izfroknhx.k lqJh lq'khykjkts ,oa uxj ikfyd fuxe] bUnkSj lacaf/kr O;ogkj okn - 171&,@2001 ,oa O;ogkj okn - 185&,@2001 ds vfUre fujkdj.k rd oknxzLr Hkwfe ij o ml ij cus Ldwy vkfn ds fuekZ.k esa oknh vfuy dkd ds vkf/kiR; esa fdlh izdkj dk u rks Lo;a] vkSj u gh fdlh vU; ds ek/;e ls dksbZ gLr{ksi djsa vkSj u gh mlesa dksbZ rksM+QksM+ djsa vkSj u gh bl ij cuk dksbZ fuekZ.k gVk;saA** 4. Against this Appellate order, the Municipal Corporation, In-dore has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Few more facts are also necessary to be mentioned about various other suits filed by the parties and order passed by the Court. 6. On 9-11-2001, XIVth ADJ, Indore in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2001 rejected the temporary injunction application of Sushri Sushilaraje, by which she prayed for temporary and mandatory injunction that the defendant Kak be restrained not to use the land for administrative purposes and not to raise any construction over 1,21,721.6 sq. ft. of land. Copy of this order is Annexure R-5. This Civil Suit No. 45-A/2001 has been filed by Sushilaraje for eviction, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and also for mesne profit. 7. On 1-12-2001 vide Annexure R-1 in MJC No. 19/2001 ADJ, Indore rejected application filed under Section 307(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 on the ground that the application has been filed by one Narendra who is not an aggrieved party and he is not affected from any construction. 8. On 11-12-2001 vide Annexure R-6 7th ADJ, Indore rejected temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, filed by plaintiff Sushilaraje in COS No. 59-A/2001, which was filed for restraining Anil Kak not to raise any other construction over the suit land. 8. On 11-12-2001 vide Annexure R-6 7th ADJ, Indore rejected temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, filed by plaintiff Sushilaraje in COS No. 59-A/2001, which was filed for restraining Anil Kak not to raise any other construction over the suit land. The application for injunction was rejected on the basis of undertaking given by Shri Kak that whatever construction shall be raised that shall be subject to any action which shall be taken by the Municipal Corporation and the defendant himself be responsible for its criminal and civil consequences. 9. Again by order dated 5-1-2002 (Annexure R-7) 14 CJ, Class-I, Indore in COS No. 643-A/2001 dismissed the temporary injunction application in which injunction was sought by Sushri Sushilaraje against Town and Country Planning Department not to sanction site plan. 10. Again by order dated 16-1-2002 (Annexure R-8) in MA No. 5/2002 the Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed by Sushri Sushilaraje against order dated 5-1-2002 passed in COS No. 643-A/2001. 11. In this petition, I have heard Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anoop Chaudhari, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Smt. Joon Chaudhary and Shri R.S. Laad and Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Smt. Ritu Bhargava for respondent No. 1, Anil Kak and Shri A.K. Sethi appearing for respondent No. 2, Sushri Sushilaraje Holkar, learned Counsel for the parties have filed various interlocutory applications and continuously made lengthy arguments on so many hearings. 12. Shri Z.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the building permission over the part of the disputed land was granted to Sushri Sushilaraje by Dakhla No. 380 on 13-5-99 by Annexure P-7 and the same was cancelled on 24-9-99 (Annexure P-9). Again, by Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure P-12) map was sanctioned for construction of school building over 16,000, but the same was cancelled immediately within 3 days on 2-6-2001. Thereafter, on 28-6-2001 (Annexure P-16), for the first time, Anil Kak applied for building permission, on which objections (Annexure P-18) were filed by Sushri Sushilaraje on 4-7-2001 and this permission was refused by Annexure P-16 on 28-8-2001, that too within a period of two months. Thereafter, on 28-6-2001 (Annexure P-16), for the first time, Anil Kak applied for building permission, on which objections (Annexure P-18) were filed by Sushri Sushilaraje on 4-7-2001 and this permission was refused by Annexure P-16 on 28-8-2001, that too within a period of two months. Thereafter, on 8-9-2001 the petitioner filed this COS No. 171-A/2001 and prayed for declaration that deemed permission be granted in his favour and the Corporation be directed to sanction map and it be declared that letter No. 354, dated 28-8-2001, refusing permission is void and injunction be also granted not to interfere in the construction raised on the basis of building permission Dakhla No. 160, dated 20-5-2001 and a similar prayer was sought in the injunction application. Therefore, he plaintly and simply submitted that when the suit for seeking relief of declaration under deemed permission and also for declaration about rejection of permission dated 28-8-2001 is pending for final relief in the suit before the Trial Court, then how plaintiff could raise construction over the plot within 3 days and can claim injunction over the same. 13. Shri Khan in nut-shell submitted that uptil now the Corporation has not granted any building permission in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Shri Kak and when the earlier two permissions, which were granted in favour of Sushri Sushilaraje, have already been cancelled, then whatever construction he has raised is illegal and, therefore, the injunction granted by the Lower Appellate Court by order dated 21-3-2002 is absolutely illegal. The Lower Appellate Court has not considered the, correct facts. The Appellate Court below was simply impressed by the construction raised in the name of school by the respondent No. 1, whereas uptil now the Corporation has not granted any valid and legal building permission in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent. 14. Shri Khan further submitted that the Trial Court by order dated 17-10-2001 only upheld the construction on 16,000 sq. ft. of land, though, the same is also illegal, as the plaintiff is not having any valid permission as the same was also refused within 3 days. His further submission was that on 15-10-99 only a lease for 16,000 sq. ft. of land has been registered in favour of the plaintiff. ft. of land, though, the same is also illegal, as the plaintiff is not having any valid permission as the same was also refused within 3 days. His further submission was that on 15-10-99 only a lease for 16,000 sq. ft. of land has been registered in favour of the plaintiff. On the other land the respondent No. 1 is having possession under lease agreement, but unless a lease for more than one year is registered the same can not be treated as valid and can not provide any right in favour of respondent No. 1 and under deeming clause he can not raise any construction unless his suit is finally decreed by the Trial Court and, thereafter, map is sanctioned by the Corporation under the directions of the Court. Therefore, Shri Khan strenuously urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Lower Court on 17-10-2001 and the Appellate Court on 21-3-2002 are bad in law and contrary to facts on record, therefore, liable to be set aside. He also submitted that Bhumi Vikas Rules and Building Permission Rules, 1984 both are applicable in this case. 15. In reply Shri Anoop Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate vehemently submitted that the lease deed has been registered for a land admeasuring 16,000 sq. ft. in favour of Anil Kak by Sushri Sushilaraje and construction has already been completed over the same and for that Property Tax is also assessed and he is paying the Property Tax for the constructed portion, therefore, the Trial Court has wrongly refused injunction over the whole land and Lower Appellate Court has rightly issued injunction about the whole construction. His further submission was that the plaintiff came to know about cancellation of permission of Dakhla No. 160, dated 2-6-2001 on 28-8-2001, as the order was communicated to Sushri Sushilaraje not to him, therefore during three months' period he raised construction. He further submitted that Anil Kak himself applied for permission by Annexure P-16 on 28-6-2001 and after the expiry of the period of two months, he had every right to start construction under the deeming clause of Section 295 (3) of Act 1956 after 28-8-2001. He further submitted that Anil Kak himself applied for permission by Annexure P-16 on 28-6-2001 and after the expiry of the period of two months, he had every right to start construction under the deeming clause of Section 295 (3) of Act 1956 after 28-8-2001. He further argued that under the Municipal Corporation Act there is no provision for cancellation of permission and the Bhumi Vikas Rules are not applicable and he further submitted that in the suit the plaintiff has prayed for declaration about the deemed sanction and approval of its map and the plaintiff had right to raise construction on the basis of Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 as well as on the basis of deemed permission and supported the order passed in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court on 21-3-2001. Shri Chaudhary in sum and substance vehemently argued on construction raised under deemed permission and submitted that Anil Kak had every right to raise construction on his own land. 16. Shri Sethi argued on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Sushri Sushilaraje and more or less argued on the same line and submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the appeal (M.A. No. 43/2001) filed by Sushri Sushilaraje. He vehemently criticized the orders of the Courts below regarding grant of injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 Anil Kak by the Trial Court and submitted that Anil Kak has obtained permission under Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 on the basis of forged signatures of Sushri Sushilaraje, as she had never applied for any permission and on this ground of committing forgery Anil Kak was not entitled for any injunction because he has not come with clean hands. 17. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the various submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the Court below and the documents on record, it is not in dispute that even after the lease agreements dated 11-8-98, 15-8-98 and 21-11-98 only lease deed for land admeasuring 16,000 sq. ft. has been registered in favour of the plaintiff on 15-10-98. It is also not in dispute that right from 11-8-98 till 28-6-2001 respondent/plaintiff Anil Kak has not applied for any building permission. Vide Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 building permission was granted to Sushri Sushilaraje and the same was cancelled on 24-9-99. ft. has been registered in favour of the plaintiff on 15-10-98. It is also not in dispute that right from 11-8-98 till 28-6-2001 respondent/plaintiff Anil Kak has not applied for any building permission. Vide Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 building permission was granted to Sushri Sushilaraje and the same was cancelled on 24-9-99. Though, in the plaint plaintiff Anil Kak submitted that the permission vide Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 was obtained for him by Sushri Sushilaraje, but he has not clarified that whether Sushri Sushilaraje had obtained permission for him or Anil Kak himself had obtained permission in the name of Sushri Sushilaraje, but it is an admitted fact that the building permission under Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 remained in force upto 24-9-99, near about four and a half months and during this period the plaintiff raised construction over the land. 18. Though, further submission of the plaintiff in the plaint is that he also raised construction on the basis of Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001, this permission was also granted to Sushri Sushilaraje, and later on Sushilaraje filed objections before the Municipal Corporation that her signatures on the application are forged and she had not applied for permission, this permission was also cancelled on 2-6-2001 within 3 days. Therefore, it is very much surprising that how Anil Kak could raise construction even after cancellation of permission of Dakhla No. 160, 29-5-2001 by order dated 2-6-2001 which only remained in force for 3-4 days. Even if this submission of the plaintiff is taken into consideration that this permission was also taken for him and he only came to know about the letter of cancellation of permission dated 2-6-2001 on 29-8-2001 even in that case it can be held that this permission also remained in force for 3 months. Thus, Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99 only remained valid upto 24-9-99 till the date of its cancellation and Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 only remained in force till 29-8-2001 and naturally it can not be argued that during this 7 months' period the entire building was completed. 19. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff Anil Kak very first time applied for building permission by Annexure P-16 on 28-6-2001, which was refused on 28-8-2001. 19. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff Anil Kak very first time applied for building permission by Annexure P-16 on 28-6-2001, which was refused on 28-8-2001. It is also not in dispute before me that in the present suit the plaintiff has not challenged order (Annexure P-9), dated 24-9-99, which is the cancellation of permission as per Dakhla No. 380, dated 13-5-99. He has also not challenged the letter of cancellation of permission of Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure P-15), dated 2-6-2001. In the suit he has only sought relief that it be declared that he has got deemed permission on the basis of his application (Annexure P-16), dated 28-6-2001 and his map be approved and the letter of refusal dated 28-8-2001 be declared as void and permanent injunction be granted to the effect that the respondent be directed not to demolish the construction raised on the basis of Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 and he had sought the same relief in his injunction application. When permission, as per Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001, was cancelled vide Annexure P-15 on 2-6-2001 then naturally after 2-6-2001 the plaintiff had no right to raise any construction. From the pleadings it is clear that the plaintiff has not challenged the cancellation of building permission as per Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001. Therefore, it was the burden on him to prove that how he was entitled for injunction. 20. Though, the permission vide Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 was cancelled on 2-6-2001, within 3 days, but after considering the case of the plaintiff that he got the knowledge of the cancellation on 29-8-2001 and during this period construction activity continued and after considering this fact that the lease deed was also registered in favour of Anil Kak on 15-10-99 and under Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 map was sanctioned for the construction over 16,000 sq. ft. of land, the Trial Court granted injunction in favour of Anil Kak by order dated 17-10-2001. Though, the case of the plaintiff was quite weak, as Sushri Sushilaraje made allegation of fraud and forged signatures on the application, but the Trial Court considered the aforesaid grounds and granted injunction on 16,000 sq. ft. of area. In fact, from the aforesaid discussion and clear-cut factual position on record on 17-10-2001 the Trial Court, instead of granting injunction on 16,000 sq. ft. ft. of area. In fact, from the aforesaid discussion and clear-cut factual position on record on 17-10-2001 the Trial Court, instead of granting injunction on 16,000 sq. ft. of land, should have only granted a relief of maintaining status quo by all the parties, but, it appears that in the interest of justice the Trial Court granted injunction in favour of plaintiff Anil Kak over 16,000 sq. ft, of land and in any case on the basis of averments of suit he was not entitled to get any more relief than what the Trial Court has granted vide order dated 17-10-2001. I think the Trial Court has rightly rejected this contention of the plaintiff that there is no case of deemed permission in favour of plaintiff Anil Kak and he had no right to raise any construction on the basis of deemed permission and if any construction has been raised the same can not be treated as valid. I am also unable to accept this line of argument of Shri Chaudhary, learned Counsel for respondent Anil Kak that under deemed permission he was entitled to raise any construction even without waiting for the decree to be granted by the Court. The question of deemed permission may be a good defence, but when declaration is sought from the Court about grant of deemed permission, until the decree is granted by the Court, the party can not act thereon. Thus, from the order of the Trial Court it is clear that it had taken a reasonable view in the matter, which was best possible in favour of plaintiff, Anil Kak and against which the Municipal Corporation had not preferred any appeal, therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the order passed by the Trial Court on 17-10-01, in this petition which has been filed by the Corporation because the said order is not under challenge. 21. Thereafter, plaintiff Anil Kak preferred Misc. Appeal Nos. 40/2001 and 44/2001 against the said order dated 17-10-2001 passed by the Trial Court and Sushri Sushilaraje also preferred Misc. Appeal No. 43/2001 and it is an admitted position that the Municipal Corporation had not challenged the said order in appeal. 22. By the impugned order dated 21-3-2001 the Lower Appellate Court decided all the three appeals. I have perused the aforesaid consolidated order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Appeal No. 43/2001 and it is an admitted position that the Municipal Corporation had not challenged the said order in appeal. 22. By the impugned order dated 21-3-2001 the Lower Appellate Court decided all the three appeals. I have perused the aforesaid consolidated order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. In fact, while passing the aforesaid order it appears that the Lower Appellate Court was confused. In the impugned order the Lower Appellate Court has not discussed that how the order of the Trial Court is bad on facts as well as on law, as it has neither analysed nor discussed the facts of the case nor examined the effect of order of building permission vide Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 and its cancellation by Annexure P-15, dated 2-6-2001 and its knowledge dated 29-8-2001 and without considering the facts of the case simply getting impressed that school is being run in the building and some other suits are pending and some orders have been passed in other suits allowed the appeals (M.A Nos. 40/2001 and 44/2001) which were filed by Shri Anil Kak and dismissed the appeal (M.A. No. 43/2001), which was filed by Sushri Sushilaraje and granted flat injunction over entire construction that till the final disposal of the suit Nos. 171-A/2001 and 185-A/2001, nobody shall demolish or interfere in the construction raised by Shri Anil Kak. 23. It is clear from the proceedings, documents and material available in the record that the impugned order of injunction passed by the Lower Appellate Court was not based on correct appreciation of facts, law and pleadings of the present suit. Looking to the bare facts except for the construction raised under those two permissions, which remained in force for a limited period, there was no valid permission in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Anil Kak for raising any construction. Therefore, the Courts below should have only protected the possession which was raised during the said period. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions, I think that the Trial Court passed a reasonable order and protected the aforesaid possession raised under Dakhla No. 160 over the land admeasuring 16,000 sq. ft., but the Lower Appellate Court has protected the entire construction which is not the subject-matter of the suit, and without considering the fact whether the same was raised legally or not ? ft., but the Lower Appellate Court has protected the entire construction which is not the subject-matter of the suit, and without considering the fact whether the same was raised legally or not ? In fact, as per the averments and relief claimed in the suit construction raised during limited period on the basis of aforesaid permission under Dakhla No. 160 was only liable to be protected and parties should have been directed to maintain status quo for that construction only, but the Lower Appellate Court, without considering the pleadings and relief, granted relief even which was not prayed for in the suit or in the injunction application. Thus the order of the Lower Appellate Court is without jurisdiction and contrary to the case of respondent No. 1/plaintiff Anil Kak. 24. It has to be kept in mind that in civil suits pleadings have their own importance and the Courts can not travel beyond that. When in present suit No. 171-A/2001 the plaintiff seeking declaration about deemed permission and accordingly a direction for sanction of map by the Municipal Corporation and also seeking declaration that the refusal of permission by letter dated 28-8-2001 is null and void and in the injunction application only prayed relief for protecting the construction raised under Dakhla No. 160 then in that case he was not entitled for more relief in the suit and certainly in any case was also not entitled for any injunction on any construction raised on the basis of deemed permission till the suit is decreed. 25. It is well settled that under Article 227 of the Constitution jurisdiction of the High Court is limited. The High Court can only interfere in the order passed by the Subordinate Courts on the ground that the same has been passed arbitrarily or capriciously arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or without jurisdiction and thus there appears to be a patent or flagrant error of procedure in the order resulted in manifest injustice. I was conscious when I was deciding this petition about limitation of the Court in such matters. I was conscious when I was deciding this petition about limitation of the Court in such matters. But, I find that the learned Lower Appellate Court has neither correctly considered the facts of the case nor examined or analysed the effect of the order of cancellation nor correctly examined the pleadings and relief clause of this case and without considering the admitted facts involved in the case passed an order which is based on no material. It appears that the Lower Appellate Court has passed the order without considering the pleadings and relief in civil suit. It is true that in civil cases a party can not get any relief more than what he has pleaded or claimed in the suit or in the application for injunction. After critically examining the orders passed by the Courts below I find that the order of the Trial Court was more close to the facts of the case and required only simple addition of status quo, but the learned Appellate Court below completely travelled beyond the pleadings, relief claimed and passed order without any material and jurisdiction. 26. Shri Khan and Shri Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the parties made rival submissions about applicability of the Bhumi Vikas Rules on the building permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. It is not in dispute that the Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 85 read with Sub-section (3) of Sections 24 and 31 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 23 of 1973). This is also clear from the admission of respondent/plaintiff Anil Kak who himself had applied vide application Annexure P-16, dated 28-6-2001 for building permission under those rules of 1984. Therefore, I do not see any force in the submissions made by Shri Chaudhary that those rules are not applicable in this case. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the Bhumi Vikas Rules have legally been framed and are applicable in this case and has rightly been invoked in this case. 27. During the pendency of the petition the petitioners filed an application for demarcating the construction and for appointment of Commissioner. This application was not seriously opposed by the respondents, therefore, the Commissioner was appointed, who submitted its report demarcating the construction in presence of the parties. 27. During the pendency of the petition the petitioners filed an application for demarcating the construction and for appointment of Commissioner. This application was not seriously opposed by the respondents, therefore, the Commissioner was appointed, who submitted its report demarcating the construction in presence of the parties. None of the parties have raised any objection over the same. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction over the entire construction, which has been raised beyond sanction, but he is only entitled to an injunction of status quo on the construction which he has raised during the limited period in which sanction as per Dakhla No. 160, dated 29-5-2001 was validly in force as has been granted by the Trial Court and not otherwise. Therefore, the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court for injunction on whole construction can not be allowed to stand as the same is contrary to facts, relief and pleadings, without any material on record. Thus, I find considerable force in this petition filed by the Municipal Corporation. 29. Accordingly, this petition, which is essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is allowed with costs and the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the order passed by the Trial Court is restored and the same shall remain in force till final decision of COS No. 171-A/2001 with order of status-quo to that part of the property, as indicated in the Trial Court's order.