SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 87

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.K. Gangele and D.K. Paliwal, JJ.
Nagar Parishad, Kailaras and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No.4900 of 2012, 6950 of 2012, 628 of 2013 and
633 of 2013 (Gwalior); Decided on 3.2.2014.

Advocates:
Anil Kumar Shrivastava for petitioner in Writ Petition No.4900/2012;
Anil Sharma for petitioners in Writ Petition No.6950/2012;
N.K. Gupta for petitioners in Writ Petitions No.628/2013
and 633/2013;
M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, in Writ Petition No.4900/2012 for respondents No.1 to 3/State,
in Writ Petitions No.6950/2012, 628/2013 and 633/2013; K.K. Sharma for respondents No.2 and 3 Railways in Writ Petition No.4900/2012;
Prashant Sharma for respondent No.4 in Writ Petitions No.6950/2012, 628/2013 and 633/2013;
Harish Dixit for respondents No.5 and 6 in Writ Petition No.6950/2012 and for respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.633/2013 and Nakul Khedkar for respondent No.7 Nagar Palika Parishad in Writ Petition No.6950/2012 and for respondent No.6/Nagar Panchayat in
Writ Petitions No.628/2013 and 633/2013.

Headnote:(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss.248(1) and 248(2A), proviso (i) -- action under -- allotment of shops by Municipal Council on lease -- premium paid -- rent paid regularly by shopkeepers -- no notice served according to law -- hearing opportunity not provided -- no action can be taken without notice -- order of ejectment and demolition of shops -- cannot be made in arbitrary manner.

       There is a report on the back side of notices that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. However, no fact has been mentioned by serving employee as to when he tried to serve the notices. The date is mentioned as 7.5.2012. The same date when the order was passed by Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. 7.5.2012. On the same date, serving employee recorded a finding that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. In all cases, the date mentioned by serving employee is same i.e. 7.5.2012.

       Held : It was not possible that on the same date, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order for registration of cases and issuance of notices and on the same date, the serving employee prepared and served the notices and recorded a finding that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. It is also a fact that no notice was issued to Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat although Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat had constructed the shops. The shopkeepers were lessors and they had been paying rent regularly to Nagar Panchayat. Apart from this, no notice was served on the shopkeepers also. The authority had taken a decision for demolition of shops and thereafter, the documents were prepared, which is clear from the record.

       It is clear that no action can be taken under this section unless a notice is issued calling of such person to appear before the authority/SDO.

       In the present case, no notice was issued to the Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat who had constructed the shops. On paper, it is noted that the notice was issued to the occupied shopkeepers, who had received the shops on lease. After appreciation of facts, it is clear that it was a paper formality. Not a single shopkeeper appeared before the authority because no notice was served on them. In our opinion, the notice was issued on the same date when the authority had initiated proceedings after completing certain formalities on paper.

       Authority cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of rule of law and the Government can resume possession only in a manner known or recognized by law. In the present case, the authorities have acted in such a manner that they became the law unto themselves. The possession of the property of the petitioners have been taken in most arbitrarily manner without following the due procedure of law. (2010)8 SCC 383 followed.

       (2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss.248(1) and 248(2A), proviso (i) -- Constitution of India -- Art.300A -- shops allotted by Municipal Council on lease -- premium paid -- rent regularily paid -- without due process of law -- shops demolished in arbitrarily manner -- business of shopkeepers completely shattered -- right to hold propery is fundamental right -- for illegal demolition of shops -- State directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to each of the shopkeepers -- conduct of enquiry against authority also directed. (2005)2 SCC 126 followed. [Paras 13 to 15

       ¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 248¼1½ rFkk 248¼2d½] ijarqd ¼,d½ && mica/k ds v/khu dkjZokbZ && uxjikfyd ifj”kn~ }kjk iV~Vs ij nqdkuksa dk vkcaVu && izhfe;e dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k && nqdkunkjksa }kjk fu;fer :i ls HkkM+s dk Hkqxrku fd;k && fof/k ds vuqlkj lwpuk&i= dh rkehy ugha && lquokbZ dk volj iznku ugha fd;k && fcuk lwpuk&i= ds dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrh && csn[kyh rFkk nqdkusa rksM+us dk vkns’k && euekuh jhfr ls ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       lwpuk&i=ksa ds i`”BHkkx ij fy[kk gS fd nqdkunkjksa us lwpuk&i= ysus ls bUdkj fd;kA rFkkfi] rkehy djkus okys deZpkjh us bl rF; dk mYys[k ugha fd;k fd mlus lwpuk&i=ksa dh rkehy djkus dk dc iz;kl fd;kA fnukad 7-5-2012 mfYyf[kr gSA ogh fnukad vFkkZr~ 7-5-2012 tc mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;kA mlh fnukad dks] rkehy djkus okys deZpkjh }kjk ;g ifj.kke vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd nqdkunkjksa us lwpuk&i= ysus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA leLr izdj.kksa esa] rkehy djkus okys deZpkjh }kjk mfYyf[kr fnukad ogh vFkkZr~ 7-5-2012 gSA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g laHko ugha fd mlh fnuakd dks] mi[kaM vf/kdkjh us izdj.kksa dks ntZ rFkk lwpuk&i= tkjh fd, tkus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k rFkk mlh fnukad dks] rkehy djkus okys deZpkjh }kjk lwpuk&i= rS;kj fd, rFkk rkehy djkbZ rFkk ;g ifj.kke vfHkfyf[kr fd;k fd nqdkunkjksa us lwpuk&i= ysus ls bUdkj fd;kA ;g Hkh lR; gS fd uxjikfyd ifj”kn~@uxj iapk;r dks dksbZ lwpuk&i= tkjh ugha fd;k x;kA ;|fi uxjikfyd ifj”kn~@uxj iapk;r us nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k djk;k FkkA nqdkunkj iV~Vsnkj Fks rFkk os uxj iapk;r dks fu;fer :i ls HkkM+s dk Hkqxrku dj jgs FksA blds vfrfjDr] nqdkunkjksa ij Hkh lwpuk&i= dh rkehy ugha dh xbZA izkf/kdkjh us nqdkusa rksM+us dk fu.kZ; ys fy;k Fkk rFkk rRi’pkr~] nLrkost rS;kj fd, x,] tks vfHkys[k ls Li”V gSA

       ;g Li”V gS fd tc rd fd O;fDr dks izkf/kdkjh@mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ds fy, cqykus ds fy, lwpuk&i= tkjh ugha fd;k tkrk gS rc rd dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA

       bl izdj.k esa] uxjikfyd ifj”kn~@uxj iapk;r dks dksbZ lwpuk&i= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k Fkk ftlus nqdkuksa dk fuekZ.k djk;k Fkk] dkxt ij] ;g fy[k ysuk fd nqdkunkj n[kynkjksa dks lwpuk&i= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlus nqdkusa iV~Vs ij izkIr dh FkhaA rF;ksa dk ewY;kadu djus ds i’pkr~ ;g Li”V gS fd ;g dkxth vkSipkfjdrk FkhA izkf/kdkjh ds le{k ,d Hkh nqdkunkj mifLFkr ugha gqvk D;ksafd mu ij lwpuk&i= rkehy ugha gqbZA gekjh jk; esa] dfri; dkxth vkSipkfjdrk,¡ iw.kZ djus ds i’pkr~ lwpuk&i= mlh fnukad dks tkjh fd;k Fkk tc izkf/kdkjh us dk;Zokfg;k¡ lafLFkr dh FkhaA

       izkf/kdkjh Lo;a fof/k ugha gks ldrkA ;g fof/k ds fu;e ds vfrØe.k esa gksxk rFkk ljdkj dsoy fof/k }kjk le>h xbZ ;k ekU;rkizkIr jhfr ls dCtk iqu% xzg.k dj ldrh gSA bl izdj.k esa] izkf/kdkfj;ksa us ,slh jhfr ls dk;Z fd;k fd os Lo;a fof/k gks x, gSaA ;kphx.k dh laifRr dk dCtk fof/k dh izfØ;k dk lE;d~ ikyu fd, fcuk vR;f/kd euekuh jhfr ls fy;k x;k gSA ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 383 vuqlfjrA

       ¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 248¼1½ rFkk 248¼2d½] ijarq ¼,d½ && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-300d && uxjikfyd ifj”kn~ }kjk iV~Vs ij nqdkusa vkcafVr && izhfe;e dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k && HkkM+s dk fu;fer :i ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;k && fof/k dh lE;d~ izfØ;k ds fcuk && nqdkusa euekuh jfr ls rksM+h xbZa && nqdkunkjksa dk O;kikj iw.kZr% can gks x;k && laifRr /kkj.k djus dk vf/kdkj ewy vf/kdkj gS && nqdkusa voS/k rksM+us ds dkj.k && izR;sd nqdkunkj dks ,d yk[k :i;s dk izfrdj Hkqxrku djus dk jkT; dks funs’k fn;k x;k && izkf/kdkjh ds fo:) tk¡p lapkfyr fd, tkus dk Hkh funs’k fn;k x;kA ¼2005½2 ,l lh lh 126 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13 ls 15½

       

ORDER

Gangele, J. -- 1. All these writ petitions have been filed against demolition of 209 shops constructed by Municipal Council, Kailaras under the guise of encroachment. Writ Petition No.4900/2012 has been filed by Nagar Parishad, Kailaras and Writ Petition No.6950/2012 (Munabbar Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others), Writ Petition No.628/2012 (Omprakash Garg and others v. State of M.P. and others), and Writ Petition No.633/2013 (Devkripasad Bansal and another v. State of M.P. and others), have been filed by shopkeepers who had granted shops on lease. Because common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. Nagar Parishad, Kailaras pleaded in the petition (Writ Petition No.4900/2012) that it had constructed shops in between 1982-1985, permission had been taken from the State Government before construction of shops. The shops were leased out to different persons. Without giving any notice or following the procedure prescribed under section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the shops were demolished. Videography was also made by Nagar Parishad at the time of demolition of 209 shops. Local administration imposed section 144 of Code of Criminal Proccedure so that the shopkeepers or public could not raise their demands against illegal demolition of shops. There was no encroachment at all and the shops were constructed over the land of Municipal Council and they were existence for last 32-35 years.

3. The Chief Municipal Officer, Kailaras on 14.5.2012 wrote a letter that due to demolition of shops without any proper notice an economic crisis was created. The Chief Municipal Officer asked information from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department to the effect as to what was the total area of the land of Public Works Department which was encroached upon by the Municipal Council and why earlier, the Public Works Department had not taken any action. Another letter dated 14.5.2012 was written by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, Gwalior and Chambal Division, Gwalior and also to the Senior Divisional Engineer (North) North Central Railway, Office of Divisional Manager (Works), Jhansi in this regard.

4. Private persons in their writ petitions (Writ Petitions No.6950/2012, Writ Petition No.628/2013 and Writ Petition No.633/2013) pleaded that the shops were constructed by Municipal Council and they had been leased out to the petitioners under rehabilitation scheme. The foundation stone of construction of shops was laid by the then Union Minister of State for Railways, Late Shri Madhav Rao Scindia. An agreement was executed between the shop-owners and the Municipal Council at the time of grant of lease. Some persons had sold the shops. The petitioners further pleaded that they had been paying leased rent to the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat regularly and before demolition of shops, no notice ws given to them. Photographs of demolition of shops have also been filed along with the petitions. Some persons were arrested because they opposed demolition of shops.

5. The State, in the reply, pleaded that a complaint was received from M.P. Road Development Corporation that there were several encroachments over both the sides of Morena-Sabalgarh road and encroachment be removed for the purpose of smooth movement of traffic. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, who was competent to remove encroachment and register a case, directed to issue notice to the persons who had made encroachment over Government land on 7.5.2012. The next date was fixed 14.5.2012. Nobody appeared on behalf of persons, neither any reply was filed. Hence, he imposed fine of Rs.200/- and also ordered removal of encroachment. Thereafter, encroachment was removed. Because there was encroachment on public street and it was required to be re












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top