Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona and ANR. – Appellant
Vs.
Ramnath and ANR. – Respondents
[Civil Appeal No. 4454 of 2014 arising out of SLP(C) No.30146 of 2012]
Decided On : 9-04-2014
(b) M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Section 319 r/w section 38, Specific Relief Act, 1988 – Section 319(1) bars any suit for declaration of title unless a notice has been served on the Nagar Palika Parishad – Respondent not complying with the requirement – His suit was not maintainable – Section 319(3) excepts suits filed for injunction u/s 38 of 1988 Act alone – Respondent’s suit being for title and injunction both, advantage of section 319(3) not available to him. (Para 9)
(c) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Appellant issuing notice of eviction from public land – Respondent not replying the same and filing suit for title and permanent injunction – Courts below deciding title – Not open to courts to decide title in absence of challenge to the eviction notice. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Notices were issued to respondent No.1-plaintiff to remove the encroachment from Khitoli Road at Mihona, District Bhind, M.P.
Instead of complying with the aforesaid notices, respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed Civil Suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction for restraining the appellants from interfering in his possession over the suit land contending that the suit land was his ancestral property.
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the first appellate court.
The second appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. –
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona (hereinafter referred to as "Nagar Palika") against the judgment dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in Second Appeal No.568 of 2009. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and affirmed the judgments passed by the first appellate court and the trial court.
3. The case of the appellant-Nagar Palika is that on finding that respondent No.1 - plaintiff has made encroachment on a public road, namely, Khitoli Road, a notice under Section 187 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") dated 26th November, 1982 was issued to respondent No.1-plaintiff calling upon him to remove the encroachment from Khitoli Road at Mihona, District Bhind, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as "suit land"). As respondent No.1 - plaintiff refused to comply with the aforesaid notice and also failed to show any title over the encroached land, another notice was issued on 23rd December, 1982, intimating respondent No.1-plaintiff that if the encroachment is not removed by him it shall be removed by the appellant, in exercise of power conferred under Section 109 read with Section 223 of the Act, 1961.
4. Instead of complying with the aforesaid notices, respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.79/90 in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class- I, Lahar, District Bhind for declaration of his title and permanent injunction for restraining the appellants from interfering in his possession over the suit land contending that the suit land was his ancestral property. The aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit land is a public road which the appellants intend to make a Pakka (Road) in consonance with the public policy and public interest due to which the action for removal of encroachment has been taken and that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 319 of the Act, 1961.
5. The trial court on hearing the parties by its judgment and decree dated 20th August, 2008 decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. The trial court held that no notice under Section 319 of the Act, 1961 is required to be issued before filing a suit for permanent injunction. The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the first appellate court by the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2009 in C.A. No. 20/09.
6. The second appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court though the appellant raised one of the following substantial questions of law: ?Whether the suit filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff was maintainable for non-compliance of statutory requirement of notice as contemplated by Section 319 of the Act, 1961.
7. Section 319 of the Act, 1961 bars suits in absence of notice and reads as follows:
"Section 319-Bar of suit in absence of notice.-
(1) No suit shall be instituted against any Council or any Councilor, officer or servant thereof or any person acting under the direction of any such Council, Councilor, officer or servant for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act, until the expiration of two months next after a notice, in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, has been, in the case of a Council delivered or left at its office, and, in the case of any such member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered to him or left at his office or usual place of abode; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been delivered or left.
(2)Every suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within eight months from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action.
(3)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any suit instituted under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)."
8. R
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
