Back
1999 (1) JLJ 119
R.S. Garg, J.
Dharmendra and another v. Indore Municipal Corporation and another
WP. No. 557 of 1998; Decided on 30.7.1998.
(2) Notice -- should be sent to the address of notice. [Para 11
(3) Notice -- delivered to watchman of addressee -- signature should be obtained -- simple writing of fact of delivery not sufficient. [Para 11
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 35 -- record maintained by Corporation -falsehood and manipulation apparent -- cannot be relied on. [Para 11
(5) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- S. 299 -- notice of cancellation of building permission -- also for removing construction already maden alleged to have been sent by registered post -- action would not be taken before postal acknowledgement is received. [Para 12
(6) Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 (M.P.) -- Rr. 11(1) and 25 -- cancellation of building sanction -- notice containing two grounds -- one of them cannot be dropped. [Para 13
(7) Court -- action of Corporationd`respondent not only contrary to law or illegal but bad -- what is bad cannot be approved by Court of law. [Para 13
(8) Civil P.C, 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- injunction granted against Corporation not challenged by it -- it is binding upon it -- immaterial if some other party has challenged the same. [Paras 41 & 16
(9) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- Ss. 299 and 293-permission granted under S. 293 -- can be revoked only before commencement of building work -- work already commenced -- power of revoking not available under S. 299. [Para 15
(10) Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 (M.P.) -- R. 11(1) -- notice to stop construction never served -- no further action can be taken. [Para 15
(11) Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 (M.P.) -- R. 25 -- no notice stating obtaining of sanction on misstatement or forged deed served -- sanction cannot be revoked when such plea is not established from the record. [Para 15
(12) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- notice of revocation of building permission -- not in accordance with law --based on false and forged record-liable to be quashed. [Para 17 & 18
¼1½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 && /kkjk 17 && lE;d~ :i ls jftLVªh—r nLrkost && jftLVªkj ls ;g izR;k‘kk ugha dh tkrh fd og dwVjfpr nLrkost jftLVj djsxkA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼2½ lwpuk && lwfpr fd, tkus okys ds iÙks ij Hksth tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 11À
¼3½ lwpuk && izsf"krh ds pkSdhnkj dks lkSaih xbZ && gLrk{kj izkIr fd, tkuk pkfg, && dsoy lkSais tkus dk rF; ys[kc) fd;k tkuk i;kZIr ughaA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 35 && uxjikfyd fuxe }kjk j[ks tkus okyk vfHkys[k && feF;kiu vkSj Ny lk/ku Li"V && voyafcr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼5½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 299 && fuekZ.k dh vuqKk jÌ fd, tkus dh lwpuk && igys&gh fd;k x;k lféekZ.k gVk, tkus ds fy, Hkh && jftLVªh—r Mkd }kjk Hkstk tkuk vfHkdfFkr && dkjokbZ] Mkd dh vfHkLoh—fr izkIr gks tkus ds iwoZ ugha dh tk gksxhA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼6½ Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 1984 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 11¼1½ rFkk 25 && fuekZ.k dh eatwjh dk jÌdj.k && lwpuk esa nks vk/kkj varfoZ"V && muesa ls ,d NksM+k ugha tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 13À
¼7½ U;k;ky; && fuxe&izRFkhZ dh dkjokbZ us dsoy fof/k ds foijhr vFkok voS/k] vfirq nwf"kr && tks nwf"kr gS] U;k;ky; }kjk vuqeksfnr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 13À
¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 39 fu- 1 rFkk 2 && fuxe ds fo#) iznÙk O;kns‘k ij mlds }kjk vk{ksi ugha && og ml ij vkc)dj gS && fdlh vU; i{kdkj }kjk ml ij vk{ksi fd;k tkuk egRoghu gSA ¿ iSjk 14 ls 16À
¼9½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 299 && 293 && /kkjk 293 ds v/khu vuqKk iznÙk && dsoy fuekZ.k dk;Z izkjaHk gksus ds iwoZ izR;kàr dh tk ldrh gSA && dk;Z igys&gh izkjaHk&& /kkjk 299 ds v/khu izR;kgj.k dh ‘kfDr miyC/k ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼10½ Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 1984 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 11¼1½ laféekZ.k can djus dh lwpuk dh tkrh vihy ugha gqbZ && vkxs dkjokbZ ugha dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼11½ Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 1984 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 25 && feF;k dFku vFkok dwVjfpr foys[k ij dh eatwjh izkIr fd, tkus dk dFku djrs gq, fdlh lwpuk dh rkehy ugha && eatwjh izR;kàr ugha dh tk ldrh tcfd ,slk vfHkokd~ vfHkys[k }kjk LFkkfir ugha gSA
¿ iSjk 15À
¼12½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && fuekZ.k dh vuqKk izR;kàr fd, tkus dh lwpuk && fof/k ds vuqlj.k esa ugha && feF;k vkSj dwVjfpr vfHkys[k ij vk/kkfjr && vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ¿ iSjk 17 ,oa 18À
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief that by issuing appropriate writ direction or order, order No. 20097 dated 31.3.98. issued by the respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent ,No.1 (Annexure P/16) be quashed; any other relief which is deemed fit be also granted and cost of the petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.
2. The facts in the factual mat are that –
(a) Two plots bearing No. 10 and 11 situate at Palasia-2-C at Indore admeasuring 40/60 feet equal to 2400 Square feet each were owned by respondent No.1 Corporation. The plots were given on 99 years lease to Dr. Vijay Kumar S/o Dulichand Pipada and Dr. Dulichand S/o Nemichand Pipada, under registered document dated 24.6.68. With the petition. the petitioners have annexed copies of the lease deed as Annexure P/3 and P/4 According to the petitioners, under two registered sale deeds dated 20.184. said Vijay Kumar Pipada and Dr. Dulichand Pipada transferred and sold the said lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners. Copies of the said transfer deeds are available on record as Annexure P/5 and P/6.
(b) According to petitioners, on 22.4.97 under inward No.7, they made a request to the respondent-Corporation for transfer of the said lease in their favour. The respondents• were pleased to allow the application and permitted transfer and mutation of the name of the petitioners for rest of the period of lease and issued memo No.4 and 5 on 30.4.97. According to petitioners, they deposited the lease rent for the suit plots. Copies of the memos dated 30.4.97 and the deposit receipts have been filed with the petition as Annexure P/7, P/8. P/9 and P/10 respectively.
(c) On 2.5.97, the petitioners moved a joint application for sanction of a building plan for raising construction on the aforesaid plot No. 10 and 11 under inward No. 568. As the petition reads, after full scrutiny the respondents issued sanction letter No. 938, dated 5.6.97 and permitted the petitioners to raise the construction over the aforesaid plots. The said permission was accorded under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1994. Copy of the said sanction is available on record as Annexure P/11.
(d) On 13.9.97, the respondent No.2 (Building Officer) issued a memo No. 149 to the petitioners that in view of the order of maintaining status-quo passed by Xth Civil Judge, Class I, Indore on 4.9.97, the petitioners should stop the construction activities. The said memo is marked as Annexure P/12. The petitioners issued a statutory notice under Section 401of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and filed Civil Suit No. 158-A/97 (copy of the order annexed with the petition shows its number as 165-A/97). In the said suit, the petitioners challenged the correctness and validity of said memo No. 13.9.97 and prayed for permanent injunction from the Court of IXth Civil Judge, Class I. Indore. The respondent No.1 and 2 submitted their written statement on 4.12.97 and admitted the grant of lease in pursuance of resolution No. 834, dated 29.2.64. They also admitted the transfer of lease hold rights in favour of the petitioners. They also admitted that vide Dakhila No. 938, dated 5.6.97 (Annexure P/11), sanction was accorded in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have filed plaint of the said civil suit No. 165-A/97 and written statement at Annexure P/13 and P/14.
(e) The petitioners in the Civil Suit No. 165-A/97 moved an application seeking a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1-2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Reply to the said application was filed by the present respondents. After hearing the parties, the said IXth Civil Judge, Class-I by its order dated 23.1.98 (annexure P/15) granted the injunction, till disposal of the suit, in favour of the petitioners, restraining the respondents from interfering with the said construction work which was being raised by the petitioners in accordance wi
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
