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

1979 Supreme(MP) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. K. TANKHA J.
Laxmi Prasad Tamrkar – Appellant
Versus
Muncipal Corporation, Raipur – Respondent
Cri. Revn. No. 283 of 1976
Decided On : 25-09-1979

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. R. Choubey
For the Respondent: S. K. Dixit

The right to apply for an injunction under section 307(5) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, is available only to the Municipal Corporation or any other person except the owner of the building.

Headnote:

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - SECTION 307(5) - INJUNCTION - RIGHT TO APPLY - ONLY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING CAN APPLY FOR INJUNCTION - OWNER OF THE BUILDING CANNOT APPLY FOR INJUNCTION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner constructed a house in Raipur City after obtaining the requisite sanction from the Municipal Corporation. However, the Municipal Corporation served a notice to the petitioner to remove certain portions of the construction as they were beyond the sanctioned plan. The petitioner filed an application under section 307(5) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, seeking an injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the construction. The lower court rejected the application as not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that section 307(5) of the Act does not confer the right to apply for an injunction on the owner of the building whose construction is sought to be demolished. The right to apply for an injunction under section 307(5) is available only to the Municipal Corporation or any other person except the owner of the building.

Issues: Whether the owner of a building can apply for an injunction under section 307(5) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, to restrain the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the construction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 307(5) of the Act and held that the words 'or any other person' occurring in the sub-section would not include the owner of the construction. The court reasoned that the purpose of sub-section (5) was to confer a special right on the Municipal Corporation to seek injunction from the District Court to get the improper construction demolished. The court further held that the heading prefixed to section 307, which reads 'Power to require removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws or any scheme or any other requirements', also supports the interpretation that the power to apply for an injunction under section 307(5) is available only to the Municipal Corporation or any other person other than the owner of the building.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the lower court's order that the petitioner had no right to move the District Court under section 307(5) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner Laxmi Prasad against the order dated 19-1-1976 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 2 of 1976.

2. According to the petitioner, he has constructed a house in Raipur City after obtaining requisite sanction from the non-applicant, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. But on 9-1-1976, the petitioner was served with a notice from the non-applicant for the removal of the construction of some rooms and the balcony, which have been constructed beyond the sanction, further failure to do so, the non-applicant would demolish them. The petitioner moved an application under section 307 (5) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for an injunction restraining the non-applicant Muncipal Corporation, Raipur, from demolishing them. The lower Court rejected that application as not maintainable. Hence, this revision by the petitioner challenging the said order.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the lower Court wrongly held that a petition could not lie for an injunction by an applicant against Corporation under section 307 (5) of the Act for restraining the Corporation from removing the construction as noticed to him and as such the said Court committed error in the exercise of its jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submitted that section 307 (5) is not available to one who is noticed by the Corporation but only to the Corporation or any other person except the one who is noticed.

4. To resolve the controversy it would be convenient first to reproduce section 307 of the Act hereunder :-

    Section 307. Power to require removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws or any scheme or any other requirement. (l) If any building 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 rejected by the Commissioner but no notice of their ejection is given to person intending to build the house wit

    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
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top