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
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 :-
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.