Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 83 (MP)

Umesh Singh Rajawat v. State of M. P.

2015-01-21

SUJOY PAUL, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution for India for issuing the appropriate writ against the authorities of the respondents for the following reliefs :- (i) That, the respondents be directed not to demolish/affect the construction of the petitioner over land bearing survey No.1021 Min.12 measuring 5600 sq.ft. (520.45 sq.mtr.) situated in Village Jaderua-Kalan, District : Gwalior, which false within area of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, Ward No.21. (ii) That, the respondents be further directed to consider the documents within regard to permissions/N.O.C.’s of the concerning departments with a further direction to consider the same in accordance with law or to afford an personal hearing prior to intimating any adverse opinion, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner and cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner. 3. In the course of the argument, on asking the petitioner’s counsel whether before filing this petition the petitioner has submitted any representation in the office of the authority of the respondents No.3 and 4 with respect of the dispute raised in this petition, on which he fairly submitted that no such representation was filed and in such premises again on asking him that whether he filed any document to show the resistance of the cause of action to file this petition, on which he submits that although the document has not been filed, but some averment has been made in the petition in this regard. He further said that without extending any opportunity of hearing, the authorities of the respondents No.3 and 4 are trying to demolish his construction, which was carried out after obtaining the proper sanction from the concerning authorities and prayed to admit and allow this petition. 4. He further said that without extending any opportunity of hearing, the authorities of the respondents No.3 and 4 are trying to demolish his construction, which was carried out after obtaining the proper sanction from the concerning authorities and prayed to admit and allow this petition. 4. Having heard the counsel keeping in view the argument after perusing the record, in the available circumstances, at present instead to admit or issuing any notice of this petition to the other side, so also without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by extending the liberty to the petitioner to file his elaborate representation with respect of the dispute raised in this petition in the office of the authority of the respondent No.3 within fifteen days from today and pursuant to it, such authority is directed that on filing such representation within the prescribed period, the same be considered and decided after keeping in view the rules, regulations, notifications, provisions, circulars, scheme promulgated in this regard or any order of any authority delivered with respect of the subject matter under intimation to the petitioner. 5. At this stage, petitioner’s counsel submits to give appropriate direction to the authority of the respondents No.3 and 4 to protect his interest with the direction not to take any coercive step against the construction of the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid prayer, it is expected from the authorities of the respondents No.3 and 4 that whatsoever steps will be taken by them in the matter, the same shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. D. P. Singh for petitioner; M.P. S. Raghuvanshi Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2; Deepak Khot for respondents No.3 and 4.