Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ.
Sajni Bajaj (Smt.) (Dr.) v. Indore Development Authority and others
Writ Petitions No. 15286 of 2018, 14970 of 2018, 14971 of 2018, 15293 of 2018 and Contempt Case No. 2021 of 2018 (Indore); Decided on 12.10.2018.
(1) Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (M.P.) -- Ss. 3 and 17 -- competent authority -- means of -- Sub Divisional Officer notified as Rent Controlling Authority -- powers of competent authority under Act of 1974 also delegater -- thus all Rent Controlling Authorities in township of Indore are also competent authorities in their respective jurisdiction. [Paras 46 & 47
(2) Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974 (M.P.) -- S. 5 -- order passed as competent authority who also functioning as Rent Controlling Authority -- validity of -- due to typographical error -- in title of Court -- designation of Court shown as Court of Rent Controlling Authority -- it is technical/typographical error -- impugned order passed by Rent Controlling Authority also be treated as order passed by Competent Authority. [Paras 45 to 47
(3) Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (M.P.) -- Ss. 5 and 7 -- jurisdiction under -- work as Rent Controlling Authority and as Sub Divisional Officer allocated to Dr. Rakesh Sharma, Member of State Administrative Services -- order passed by such authority as Competent Authority under above section in their respective jurisdiction -- not without jurisdiction. 2008 (4) MPLJ 338 and W.P. No. 3962/2018; Decided on 8.3.2018 relied on. Writ Appeal No. 11/2016; Decided on 1.8.2016 and (2012) 2 SCC 232 referred to. [Paras 48 to 52
(4) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.) -- Ss. 38 and 56 -- M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhinyam, 1973 -- Ss. 5 and 7 -- for establishment of Hospital -- lease granted by Indore Development Authority under Act of 1973 -- breach of conditions of lease -- lease cancelled -- cancellation of lease not challenged before competent civil Court -- lessee is encroacher of such premises -- order of eviction passed by Competent Authority under provisions of Act of 1974 -- no interference called for -- Indore Development Authority shall be entitled to take possession -- petitions and contempt case dismissed. [Paras 53 to 58
(5) Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (M.P.) -- Ss. 5 and 7 -- M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 -- Ss. 38 and 56 -- for establishment of Hospital -- lease granted by Indore Development Authority under Act of 1973 -- breach of conditions of lease -- lease cancelled -- cancellation of lease not challenged before competent civil Court -- lessee is encroacher of such premises -- order of eviction passed by Competent Authority under provisions of Act of 1974 -- no interference called for -- Indore Development Authority shall be entitled to take possession -- petitions and contempt case dismissed. [Paras 53 to 58
(6) Vikas Pradhikarno Ki Sampattiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 (M.P.) -- R. 1(2) -- M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 -- S.5 -- prior to enforcement of Rules of 2018 -- eviction order passed under provisions of Act of 1974 -- Rules of 2018 not applicable -- Indore Development Authority shall be entitled to take possession. [Para 57
Sharma, J.--1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 15286/2018 are narrated hereunder.
2. The petitioner before this Court, who is a resident of Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and a Doctor by profession, has filed present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 19.6.2018 and 27.6.2018 passed by the Competent Authority under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has appointed one Ranveer Singh Chhabra as duly constituted attorney vide Power of Attorney dated 11.3.1996 and the Power of Attorney is still in existence.
3. It has been further stated that a scheme was framed, keeping in view the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, known as Scheme No. 71, for residential and commercial purposes and a plot in Sector-B, total area 3238.96 square meter was earmarked for Hospital.
4. A Notice Inviting Tender was issued in respect of the aforesaid plot and initially the plot was allotted to one Neeraj Mudholkar and as there was some dispute between the allottee and the Indore Development Authority, the allotment of the plot was cancelled.
5. A petition was preferred by Neeraj Mudholkar challenging the cancellation of allotment i.e. Writ Petition No. 1136/1993 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 13.2.2001. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the Indore Development Authority has again issued an advertisement for granting lease of the said plot and the petitioner who participated in the tender process through his Power of Attorney was held to be the highest bidder and by allotment dated 23.6.1995 the plot was allotted to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has further stated that he has obtained a “No Objection Certificate” from the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. He has also applied for grant of building permission and the possession of plot was given to him on 7.6.1996.
7. The most important aspect of the case is that the plot in question was earmarked for Hospital and the petitioner after obtaining necessary permissions to build a Hospital, as the land was allotted only for establishment of Hospital, started raising construction and the petitioner has further stated that the building has been constructed as per the sanctioned building plan. The petitioner has further stated that he has constructed the building partially. The construction has taken place in respect of Lower Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor and First Floor.
8. The petitioner in his writ petition has categorically admitted that after completion of the partial construction, the petitioner transferred certain shops by way of sale deeds and lease deeds to certain other persons to carry out activities which are ancillary activities to a Hospital. It has been stated that PCO, Barber Shop, Laundry, Canteen, Juice Shop, etc. are in existence. The petitioner has further stated that the petitioner has received a notice dated 5.4.2005 issued by Indore Development Authority stating that earlier also notices have been issued on 23.7.2004, 27.9.2004 and 3.1.2005 informing the petitioner that lease has been terminated on account of violation of terms and conditions of the lease deed. The petitioner was also directed to deliver the possession of plot within seven days to the Executive Engineer of the Indore Development Authority vide notice dated 5.4.2005.
9. The petitioner being aggrieved by notice dated 5.4.2005 preferred a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 531/2005. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2007. This Court has quashed the letter dated 5.4.2005 by which the lease deed was cancelled as well as notice dated 9.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
