Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 263
2012(2) JLJ 351
S.K. Gangele and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
Nagar Palik Nigam, Gwalior v. Bhagwan Das Gupta
Writ Petition No.27 of 2012 (Gwalior); Decided on 30.4.2012.
M.P.S. Raghuvanshi and P.D. Bidua for petitioner;
N.K. Gupta for respondent.
Headnote:Appeal -- admitted for hearing -- no application of compromise -- also not dismissed in limine -- disposal on the basis of consensus contrary to law -- decision only on merits obligatory -- appeal set aside and restored.
Held : However, from the perusal of the order it is clear that the appeal has been disposed of on the basis of consensus. Hence, the review is maintainable and order is liable to be recalled. It is also to be seen that no judgment has been passed in the appeal. Another mode of disposal of appeal is disposal on the basis of compromise. There was no application for compromise. The appeal has also not been dismissed in limine. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 19.4.2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of learned Single Judge to decide the appeal on merits.
Hence, there is apparent error on the face of record and substantive injustice has been caused to the review petitioner. We may also observe one aspect of the matter that the controversy involved in the appeal is about the property which belongs to the uncle of Mayor of Municipal Corporation. In such factual aspect of the matter, it is necessary to decide the appeal on merits. Hence, the review petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.7.2011 passed in First Appeal No.60/2000 is hereby set aside and recalled and the First Appeal No.60/2000 is restored to file. (2011)6 SCC 456, AIR 2003 SC 2095 and AIR 1954 SC 526 followed.
vihy & lquokbZ ds fy, x`ghr & le>kSrs dk dksbZ vkosnu ugha & izkjaHk esa gh [kkfjt Hkh ugha & erSD; ds vk/kkj ij fuiVkjk fof/k ds izfrdwy & xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fofu‘p; gh vkc)dj & vihy vikLr rFkk izR;kofrZr A
vfHkfu/kkfjZr % rFkkfi] vkns‘k ds ifj‘khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd vihy dk fuiVkjk erSD; ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS A blfy,] iqufoZyksdu xzkg; gS rFkk vkns‘k okil e¡xk, tkus ;ksX; gS A ;g Hkh ns[kk tkuk gS fd vihy esa dksbZ fu.kZ; ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS A vihy ds fuiVkjs dh vU; jhfr le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fuiVkjk gS A le>kSrs ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu ugha Fkk A vihy izkjaHk esa gh [kkfjt Hkh ugha dh xbZ A vihy bl U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB )kjk ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 19-4-2000 )kjk lquokbZ ds fy, x`ghr dh xbZ A blfy, fo)ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k ds fy, vihy dk xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fofu‘p; djuk vkc)dj Fkk A
blfy,] vfHkys[k dks ns[krs gh ;g izR;{k xyrh gS rFkk iqufoZyksdu djus okys ;kph dks ?kksj vU;k; dkfjr gqvk gS A ge ekeys ds bl igyw dh Hkh leqfDr dj ldrs gS fd vihy esa varoZfyr fookn ml laifRr ds ckjs esa gS tks uxj fuxe ds egkikSj ds pkpk dh gS A ekeys ds bl rkfF;d igyw dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vihy dk xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fofu‘p; djuk vko‘;d gS A blfy,] iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk eatwj dh tkrh gS A izFke vihy dz-60@2000 esa ikfjr vkf{kIr vkns‘k fnukad 7-7-2011 ,rn~)kjk vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk okil e¡xk;k tkrk gS rFkk izFke vihy dz-60@2000 izLrqr djus ds fy, izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS A ¼2011½6 ,l lh lh 456] , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 2095 rFkk , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 526 vuqlfjr A
Gangele, J. -- 1. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He pleaded that he is owner of a farm house registered in the Municipal Corporation as 48/993/1 situate at Hem Singh ki Parade, Jambur Khana, Lashkar, Gwalior. Land of the house is a joint family property. Plaintiff-respondent’s elder brother Naresh Kumar purchased the aforesaid land and the farm house constructed over it from Mahadev Narayan Rao vide registered sale-deed dated 30.7.1959. Since, then they had been residing in the house. The Tahsildar, Gwalior vide order dated 10.6.1967 declared that Naresh Kumar was the Bhumiswami of the land. On 29.8.1992, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff in regard to removal of construction. The plaintiff-respondent submitted a reply on 10.9.1992 and pleaded that he had not made any encroachment neither he had made new construction; however, the officers of Municipal Corporation had been continued to threaten him to remove the construction. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff sought a decree of declaration and permanent injunction.
2. The Municipal Corporation in its written statement denied the fact that the plaintiff was the owner of the land. The present petitioner-defendant Municipal Corporation specifically pleaded that the suit land is of the ownership of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior because in the Khasra entry of Samwat 2040 it was recorded as Nazul land. In the earlier suit proceedings, Municipal Corporation was not a party, hence, the judgments passed by the Court below were not binding. It is further pleaded that the sale-deed executed in favour of the elder brother of plaintiff was null and void because the seller had no right of ownership. It is further pleaded that before the Tahsildar, Municipal Corporation was not a party.The Municipal Corporation issued notice on 29.8.1992 under sections 293, 294 and 302 of the Municipal Corporation Act for removal of construction because the construction was made without approval from the Municipal Corporation. Trial Court framed following issues for decision of the suit:
^^1- D;k oknh oknxzLr Hkou ¼QkeZ gkÅl½ ij ,dek= Lokeh dh gSfl;r ls vkf/kiR;dkjh gS \
2- D;k oknh mDr oknxzLr Hkou QkeZ gkÅl ds 40 o 50 o”kZ iqjkuk gksus ls mldh ejEer djkrk jgk gS ,oa mDr Hkou ds dksbZ ifjorZu ugha fd;k x;k gS \
3- D;k oknh dks izfroknh )kjk uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k vf/kfu;e] 1972 rFkk e-iz- Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 1984 ds izko/kku ds vraxZr lwpuki= nsus vFkok Hkou dks rksM+us dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS \
4- D;k oknh izfroknh dks oknxzLr Hkou dk okf”kZd laifRr dj vnk jgk gS \ ;fn gk¡ rks izHkko \
5- D;k oknh dks izfroknh ds fo:) dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvk gS \
6- D;k izfroknh dks oknh )kjk dksbZ lwpuki= ugha Hkstk x;k gS \
7- D;k oknh )kjk okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k tkdj i;kZIr U;k; ‘kqYd vnk ugha dh xbZ gS \
8- lgk;rk ,oa O;; \**
3. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff-respondent is in possession of the house No.48/993/1 situate at Hem Singh ki Parade, Jambur Khana, Lashkar, Gwalior and a permanent injunction was issued against the Corporation to the effect that the Municipal Corporation shall not interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Corporation preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as First Appeal No.60/2000. The Corporation specifically pleaded in the appeal that the Corporation is the owner of the suit property and house was constructed illegally. The Corporation raised the following grounds in the appeal :
^^1- ;g fd] v/khuLFk U;k;ky;] fu.kZ; feF;k ,oa rF;ksa ds foijhr gksus ls fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS A
2- ;g fd] oknxzLr laifRr fjLiksaMsaV Hkxokunkl )kjk dz; ugha dh xbZ Fkh fQj Hkh caVokjs ds izdj.k ds vk/kkj ij fjLiksaMsaV dks Lokeh ekudj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkwy dh gS A
3- ;g fd] ‘kkldh; Hkwfe dks fjLiksaMsaV@oknh dh laifRr ekudj Hkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkwy dh gS A
4- ;g fd] fjLik
