Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 758 (MP)

Pritam Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-07-26

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, BRIJ KISHORE DUBE

body2012
JUDGMENT : They are heard finally. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the action of respondent No. 4, dismantling the house of the petitioner holding him to be a trespasser by passing an order (Annexure P-l), dated 29-11-11. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the title holder of the suit property and the suit property was sold in favour of his predecessor, Ramgopal in the year 1967 by Bhagwati Prasad, who has later on sold the suit property to the present petitioner. 4. Umpteen documents have been filed by the petitioner indicating that he is title holder and by inviting our attention to the order dated 5-9-1975 (Annexure P-4), it has been submitted that the respondent No. 4 compounded the construction, which was raised without seeking permission, and thus, the respondent No. 4 is estopped from raising any dispute in regard to title of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is an encroacher. Learned Counsel submits that compounding fee was already deposited by the petitioner and he is regularly paying the Municipal Tax. Thus, it has been prayed that by allowing this petition, the impugned order (Annexure P-1), dated 29-11-2011 be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the respondent No. 4 compounded the offence although the said order has been passed by the President, Municipal Council, Dabra, who has no jurisdiction to compound the offence as envisaged under Section 187-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, but, in the said order (Annexure P-4), it has been mentioned that the action of compounding the offence is nothing to do with the proving of the title of the petitioner and the construction, which has been raised by the petitioner is the land of the Municipality and, therefore, the notice was rightly given and, thereafter. the action to dismantle the house in question has been initiated. 6. Since, there are serious disputed questions of facts of title and while exercising the writ jurisdiction, the said dispute cannot be decided by us, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to file a civil suit in that regard and seek temporary injunction from that Court. the action to dismantle the house in question has been initiated. 6. Since, there are serious disputed questions of facts of title and while exercising the writ jurisdiction, the said dispute cannot be decided by us, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to file a civil suit in that regard and seek temporary injunction from that Court. But, looking to the fact that full-fledged house in question is in existence and the petitioner is also living with his family, for a period of three months, no dismantle shall take place. In the meantime, within that period after giving the requisite notice etc., under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, if a civil suit is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merit. 7. The petitioner may also file necessary application for the issuance of temporary injunction. It is further made clear that while deciding the application for temporary injunction, the learned Civil Court shall take into account that a double-storey house of the petitioner is in existence. The petitioner is not only possessing the same, but is also residing in it and, therefore, by keeping all these facts in mind. the application for temporary injunction be considered by the Civil Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed certain photographs of the house in question and on bare perusal of the same, it is gathered that outer wall and door have been dismantled. According to us, if the petitioner is not permitted to erect the wall and to fix a door, Article 21 of the Constitution of India would come into the picture and there will be danger to the life of the petitioner and his family members and, therefore, only to protect the house of the petitioner and till the decision of the temporary injunction application, necessary wall should be erected and a door be fixed, but not a Mahal and no new construction would be made. Further, it is made clear that the permission granted to the petitioner to construct a wall and to fix a door would not confer any right in him. 9. Further, it is made clear that the permission granted to the petitioner to construct a wall and to fix a door would not confer any right in him. 9. It is further made clear that this Court has not at all expressed any view in regard to the title of the property in question, whether it belongs to the Municipality or the petitioner and it is absolutely the domain of the Civil Court to decide the civil suit on the basis of pleadings, evidence and the documents, which shall be filed by the parties. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.