Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1175 (MP)

Devnarayan v. Indore Municipal Corporation

2020-11-02

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
ORDER 1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 18.9.2020 issued by the respondent No.3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in respect of the subject property the petitioner had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction being CS No.113-A/1994. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and decree was upheld by the first appellate court, but it was reversed in second appeal, therefore, the petitioner has filed SLP (Civil) No.34076/2019 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order dated 25.10.2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo, yet the impugned notice has been issued. 3. The respondents have filed their reply taking the plea that the dispute in the pending litigation in the civil suit was in respect of ownership and possession whereas the petitioner is now required to furnish the documents relating to building permission and that the respondents are only concerned with the legality of the building construction and has nothing to do with the ownership and possession of the land and even otherwise, the Municipal Corporation, Indore is not a party in the pending suit. 4. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that in spite of the order of status quo the respondents had issued the impugned notice and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on the respondents under Article 129 of the Constitution. 5. The submission of learned counsel for respondents is that the respondents are not concerned with the pending dispute and the issue in the impugned notice is about the building permission only. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned notice dated 18th September, 2020 has been issued by the Building Officer; respondent No.3 demanding the documents relating to title and building permission. The record further reflects that in pursuance to the said notice the petitioner has filed the reply dated 18.9.2020 enclosing there with the decree in the civil suit and the order of status quo passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The record further reflects that the suit filed by the petitioner was in respect of declaration of title and injunction protecting possession based on the plea of adverse possession. The legality of construction raised on the land in question is not an issue therein. The record further reflects that the suit filed by the petitioner was in respect of declaration of title and injunction protecting possession based on the plea of adverse possession. The legality of construction raised on the land in question is not an issue therein. Counsel for petitioner has failed to point out that the respondents are intending to take any action to dispossess the petitioner. It is not in dispute before this Court that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on the parties therein and the same is required to be fully complied with. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is required to file the necessary documents relating to title and building permission before the respondent Municipal Corporation and the respondent Municipal Corporation is required to take an appropriate decision and proceed in accordance with law having due regard to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file the necessary documents along with fresh reply before the respondent No.3 within a period of one week from today and the respondent No.3 is permitted to proceed in accordance with law after receiving the said documents. Manohar Dalal for petitioner; Soumitra Bajaj for respondents No.1 and 2.