Modi, J. —This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. The case, as disclosed by the petitioner, is that she was the owner of a plot No. J 39 in C Scheme, (now known as Ashok Nagar) Jaipur, and she built a house thereon after obtaining proper sanction of the Municipal Council, Jaipur. As it happened, slight variations were made, as the construction proceeded, and these were objected to by the Municipal Council at the instance of respondents No. 3, Shri D. D. Goswami, who had his house on the adjoining plot. It was alleged that the Municipal Council compounded the action of the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 101/-by order of the Chairman dated 24th October, 1956. The money was remitted by the petitioner. Respondent No.3, Shri D.D. Goswami filed a revision, which was heard by the Deputy Minister, Local Self Government, on 31-st January, 1957, but the petitioner was not informed of the decision. The petitioner lived at Kanpur, and got information from his relations in Jaipur on 22nd April, 1957, that the overseer of the Municipal Council with police force and 20 other persons had come to the house of the petitioner, and started demolition of the front portion and the staircase, which action, if completed, would have resulted in the front portion of the building to collapse, and in causing injuries to the tenants who were occupying the house. The work of demolition was, however, stopped by the personal intervention of one of the Ministers of the Government, and the petitioner learnt that the revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 to the Government had been allowed on the 17th April, 1957, and it was in pursuance of that order of the Government that the demolition of the petitioners house had been undertaken. The petitioner submitted that the order of the Government directing demolition of his building was illegal on various grounds mentioned in the petition, and should, therefore, be set aside.

3. On behalf of the Municipal Council a reply was submitted that the Government had the power under its revisional-jurisdiction to set aside any order of the Municipal Council, and it was in exercise of such jurisdiction that the order of the Municipal Council compounding the unauthorised construction had been quashed, and an order was further passed by the Government that such unauthorised constructions should be demolished.

4. Mr. D.D. Goswami also filed a reply in which he averred that he had brought to the notice of the Municipal Council that the petitioner, Mrs. Jain, was constructing contrary to the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Council, but the Chairman wrongly compounded the case, whereupon he filed a revision, and the Government, in exercise of revisional powers, decided to quash the order of compounding the case, and further directed demolition of the unauthorised construction, and the Government was competent to pass the orders which it did.

5. Various copies of documents have been produced in the case, and it appears from a perusal thereof that on complaint by Shri Goswami to the Chairman, Municipal Council, on 10th September, 1956, the site was inspected by the building inspector, Satram Das, on 15th September, 1956. His report was as under: —

"I have seen the site in the presence of the applicant (Shri D.D. Goswami) yesterday. The deviations from the sanctioned plan are as under-

(a) Staircase is constructed on front side on west of the building which is within 15 ft. from the compound wall.

(b) Balcony is constructed on the height of 13 ft. against 15 ft. from ground level as per sanctioned plan. The work has not been stopped, though legal notice was served under sec. 210 and action to dismantle the item No. (a) was taken. As per A.D.M.s verbal orders given to the B. I. on 27/7 the dismantling operations were kept in abeyance. Letter to Secretary U.I.B. was written on 16.8.56 to intimate whether revised plan has been received, (but) no reply has yet been received.

6. The Commissioner recommended action to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document