Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 392 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1956"), the petitioner herein has preferred this revision petition against the impugned order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in MJC No.148/2012, whereby learned District Judge has allowed the application preferred by the respondent under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956 and directed the petitioner to remove the construction and deliver the vacant possession of the suit land within two months from the date of passing of the order to the respondent herein.

2. Ram Sahay Verma, respondent herein has filed an application under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956 stating inter-alia that he is the title holder of Nazul Plot No.4/2 and 5 situated at Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, in which his title has been affirmed by the trial Court, appellate Court and by this Court and he obtained possession of the said land on 12.03.1992. It was also pleaded that the petitioner herein, without obtaining permission from the respondent, has made construction on it. Therefore, such construction be removed in exercise of power conferred under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956.

3. The above application was filed duly supported by an affidavit of the respondent. The application was registered by learned District Judge as MJC No.148/12 and notice was issued to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, reply was filed and ultimately the said application was allowed without holding any enquiry.

4. Learned District Judge vide order dated 02.02.2015, allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to remove the construction within two months from the date of the passing of the order.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Municipal Corporation has filed this instant revision under Section 392 of the Act of 1956 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as "CPC")

6. Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that application filed under the Act of 1956 for removal of construction made by the Municipal Corporation was not maintainable as learned District Judge ought not to have registered the said case as a separate MJC. On the basis of Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956, separate Civil Suit ought to have been filed for removal of said construction. He would further submit that learned District Judge has not made any enquiry on the application filed by the respondent herein and only on the basis of concession given on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, Municipal Corporation has directed to remove the construction, which is absolutely unsustainable in law. He would also submit that the District Judge ought to have made enquiry in the said application before granting any relief and as such, construction has been made long back and the same is in accordance with law. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, Shri HB Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate countering the submission made by counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already admitted that construction made is contrary to the law and unauthorised. The petitioner has also filed reply to the application filed by the respondent. The petitioner has admitted that no permission was granted by Municipal Corporation before making such construction. He would further submit that the title of the respondent has already been declared by the Civil Court in case No.17A/91 and also by this Court in Second Appeal No.119/92. Therefore, learned District Court is absolutely justified in allowing the application filed under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance in the matter of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and another, (2010) 6 SCC 601.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissi