Under Section 295(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, an applicant acquires the right to construct a building if the Municipal Corporation fails to respond to the application within 30 days.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14-12-1993 passed by VII Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 57-A of 1993.

2. The respondent No. 1 is a private company. It is owner of Khasra No. 141/87/1/1 and Khasra No. 150/87/1/1. It is also in possession of the land comprised in the aforesaid Khasras. The possession of the temporary constructions on the aforesaid pieces of land are not in dispute. The respondent No. 2 similarly, owns and possesses Khasra No. 147/87/1/1 and Khasra No. 150/87/1/1 and also controls the temporary constructions standing on these lands. The respondents were permitted to construct a boundary wall around these four structures on their lands on 10-6-1987.

3. The respondents pleaded on 16-7-1983 that they filed applications and other documents in the office of the appellant along with maps but the officers/servants of the appellant refused to take these applications. Thereupon respondents were forced to send these applications along with maps and other relevant documents for sanction of the constructions of the buildings by registered post on 31-7-1993. The respondents claimed that after 30 days from the date of receipt of the applications, they acquired a right to construct as per section 295(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and accordingly started construction, as they did not receive any reply from the appellant. The officers and servants of the Municipal Corporation/appellant obstructed the said construction work and, therefore, a civil suit was filed for permanent injunction. On these basic facts an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made for grant of temporary injunction.

4. The appellant claimed that the defective applications were sent back on 18-8-1983 and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have no right to start construction activity.

5. The trial Court found that it was not disputed before it that respondents were owners and holding possession of the suit land. The respondents had constructed the wall around their plots with permission and sanction of the appellant. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondents had right to use the property in the capacity of owners of the suit land. The trial Court also found that appellant was unable to show how the respondents had failed in their duty of filing the incomplete applications. The appellant-Corporation was not able to show if it had returned application to respondents on the grounds claimed by it. On the other hand, the respondents filed affidavit of Nasim Khan along with photocopy of the application and the concerned maps sent for sanction to the applicant. These applications were in accordance with the Act and rules framed thereunder. The appellant-Corporation had sat over the matter for more than thirty days. Thus, a right accrued in favour of the respondents and accordingly, they started construction, as delay would have caused resulting in irreparable injury which could not be compensated by money. The appellant did not file any affidavit controverting these facts and, therefore, the learned trial Judge granted temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with construction activities as per map filed by the respondents in the Court below by way of evidence of the fact that they had sent the application for grant of sanction.

6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court comes to conclusion that appellant had no case whatsoever in obstructing the construction activity on the part of respondents. The respondents were required to send applications and relevant documents by registered post due to refusal on the part of the officers/servants of the appellant-Corporation. They waited for 30 days and, thereafter, started construction activities because no reply was received by them. The counsel were heard on 14-3-1994 in part. Th