A.S. Tripathi, J. -- 1. This revision was preferred by the petitioner u/S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 17.7.1993 in Misc. Case No. 15/89 pased by IVth Additional District Judge, Gwalior.

2. While hearing this revision, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 3rd Nov. 1993 found conflict between the two decisions of Single Judges of this Court in the case of Malkhandas Changandas v. Om Prakash Lalaram Ameria & others, reported in 1993 MPLJ 98 and K.M. Shah alias Kantubhai Shah v. Smt. Kamla & Anr. reported in 1992 (2) MPJR SN 10 on the same subject. The learned Single Judge felt that the decision in the case of Malkhandas (supra) needs reconsideration and accordingly ordered that the records be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench to resolve the controversy. Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 24th March, 1994 directed that the records be placed before a Division Bench for hearing at Gwalior. That is how this case has come up for hearing befon, us.

3. We have heard Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 and Shri R.K. Vashishtha, learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2.

4. The cleavage of the opinions relates to the interpretation of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act', which reads thus:

"307. Power to require removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws or any scheme or any other requirement.-

If any building is erected or re-erected in contravention of any town planning scheme mentioned under section 291 or of any building bye-laws made under section 427 the Commissioner without prejudice to his right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention may by notice require the owner either to pull down or remove the work or, if he so elects, to effect such alteration therein as may be necessary to make it comply with the said scheme or bye-laws.

(2) If a building is erected or re-erected-

(a) without any sanction as required by section 293 (1), or

(b) when sanction has been refused, or

(c) in contravention of the terms of any sanction granted, or.

(d) when sanction has lapsed under section 300,

the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 294, shall

(a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, or (b) shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down.

(3) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, the Commissioner may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the person.

(4) If the plans are (approved) by the Commissioner and the approval is communicated to the person intending to build the house or if the plans are rejectred by the Commissioner but no notice of their rejection is given to person intending to build the house within the prescribed period, it shall not be open to the Commissioner to give a notice under sub-section (1) and (2) on the ground that building is erected or re-erected in contravention of any scheme or bye-laws or any other requirements under this Chapter.

(5) Nothing