Back
2004 Supreme(MP) 331
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. PANDE
AMAN EDUCATION SOCIETY, BHOPAL - Appellant
Versus
NAGAR NIGAM, BHOPAL - Respondents
Civil Revn. 307 Of 2002
Decided On : 04/07/2004
AJAY MISHRA, N.K.PATEL, Pushpendra Singh, S.L.Patel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to enclose all necessary documents for construction sanctioning and the importance of fair and proper hearing in administrative proceedings.
Headnote:
Deemed Permission - Construction on Land - M. P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956, Section 295(3) - The court discussed the requirements for deemed permission under Section 295(3) and the necessity of enclosing all required documents for sanctioning construction. The court also considered the principle of fair hearing as established in Rajkumar v. Commissioner, Municipal Corp. 1999 (1) MPWN 24, emphasizing the importance of administrative authorities according fair and proper hearing to the persons affected by their orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for permission to construct on a specific land. The respondent Corporation did not refuse permission within the stipulated time, leading to deemed permission. However, the respondent later rejected the application, leading to a dispute over the construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to enclose all required documents for sanctioning construction, and the principle of deemed permission under Section 295(3) was not attracted. The court also noted that the petitioner avoided the hearing on his application, which led to the rejection of the application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deemed permission for construction, the rejection of the application, and the petitioner's avoidance of the hearing on the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to enclose required documents and avoidance of the hearing precluded the application of deemed permission. The court also emphasized the importance of fair and proper hearing as established in previous case law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding it to be time-barred and ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioner to bear the costs.
( 2 ) ON 18-10-1999 the petitioner submitted application for permission to make construction on land Khasra No. 26 area 2. 83 acres situated at Kohefija, Bhopal. Since respondent Corporation did not refuse permission within 30 days and hence permission deemed to have been granted under section 295 (3) of the M. P. Municipal corporation Act 1956 (for short the "act"), the petitioner in February, 2000 started construction work according to the map submitted vide application dated 18-10-1999. On 7-6-00 the Engineering department of the respondent Corporation served a notice under Section 307 (2) of the Act requiring the petitioner to demolish the said construction. The notice was duly replied by the petitioner, but the respondent threatened to demolish the construction if the same has not been demolished by 13-6-00. Against the said notice the petitioner filed an appeal before the I ADJ, Bhopal. In the aforesaid appeal the respondent filed documents and from these the petitioner came to know by letter No. 44 dated 3-6-00 that his application for permission to make construction was rejected by the respondent. Information about this letter was never given previously to the petitioner. On 21-8-00 the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 3-6-00 by which the application for permission for construction was rejected, but no certified copy was given by the respondent. On the basis of certified copy of letter No. 44 dated 3-6-00 the petitioner filed M. A. No. 3/00 before V ADJ, Bhopal under Section 293 (3) of the Act. The respondent inter alia contended that the map of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be sanctioned under section 295 (3) and the order rejecting the application was passed after following the legal procedure. It has also been contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner is barred by time. V ADJ, Bhopal vide impugned order dated 19-11-01 held the appeal being time barred and the map of petitioner cannot be deemed to be sanctioned under Section 295 (3), dismissed the appeal.
( 3 ) IT has been contended that on 18-10-1999 application for permission to make construction on land khasra No. 26 area 2. 83 acres Koheflja, Bhopal was filed by the petitioner. Xerox copy of this application dated 18-10-1999 has been tiled with the appeal M. A. No. 3/00. As per list of the enclosure, only a notarized affidavit has been tagged. Memo dated 2-11-1999 sent to the petitioner goes to show that NOC of Nazul has not been enclosed by the petitioner with his application dated 18-10-1999. Accord ingly, the petitioner was directed to furnish the aforesaid NOC of Nazul Department. It is contended that the petitioner did not appear before the respondent and considering the incomplete application vide order dated 3-6-00 the application aforesaid was rejected for the reason of non-supply of NOC from nazul and Town and Country Planning. After this the respondent issued the notices dated 2-6-00 and 7-6-00 informing the petitioner he is illegally carrying on the construction. Finally he was served with a notice dated 7-6-00 by Engineering department under Section 307 (2) requiring the petitioner to demolish the said construction. Section 295 (3) lays down as under :- (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) but subject to the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 291 if the Commissioner within thirty days of the receipt from any person of a valid notice of such person's intention to erect or re-erect a building, or within sixty days of such receipt if the notice relates to a building on the same or part of the same site on which sanction for the erection of a building has been refused within the previous twelve months, neglects or omits to pass orders sanctioning or refusing to sanction such erection or re-erection, such erection or re-erection, shall, unless that land on whic
