Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 17399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5024 of 2023 BETWEEN:- 1. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD SHUJALPUR MUKHY NAGAR PALIKA ADHIKARI NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD SHUJALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. MUKHAY NAGAR PALIKA ADHIKARI NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD SHUJALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI GOVIND PAL SINGH SONGARA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. PASHCHIM RAILWAY RATLAM MANDAL THROUGH PRADHIKRT ADHIKARI ANKUR SINGH S/O SHRI ROOPCHAND JI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VARISHTH MANDAL ENGINEER RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA JILADISH SHUJALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI, ADVOCATE) (RESPONDENT NO.3 / STATE BY SHRI SUDHANSHU, PANEL LAWYER) This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Govind Pal Singh Songara,
ORDER
Respondent / Western Railway, Ratlam filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the Nagar Palika Parishad, Shujalpur. According to the plaintiff, Western Railway erected Ujjain - Bhopal Railway Station for the convenience of the public.
02. The petitioners are aggrieved by order No.1020/2020 dated 04.12.2020 and 29.12.2020, whereby the defendants have carried out the demarcation behind the back of the plaintiff and put the boundary marks.
According to the plaintiff, on the said which is covered by the boundary wall constructed by the Railway and quarters for Railway's staffs are already there, therefore, said demarcation is not binding on the plaintiffs and the defendants be restrained to interfere into the peaceful possession. Along with plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also filed seeking temporary injunction.
03. The petitioners filed a reply by submitting that the plaintiff has wrongly constructed the wall and quarters on the land bearing Survey No.2615 area 0.784 hectare belonging to the Nagar Parishad which is required for construction of flyover, by encroaching 0.443 hectare of land.
04. The learned Civil Judge after considering the evidence came on record, prima facie, found a case for balance of convenience, irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants to interfere into peaceful possession. Thereafter, miscellaneous appeal was filed by the defendants that too has been dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2023. Both the Courts below prima facie found that the plaintiff is in possession by way of Government Quarters and boundary wall and the same are not liable to be demolished by the defendants and the plaintiff is not liable to be evicted during pendency of the civil suit. It is also not the case of the Nagar Palika that the land is vacant and plaintiff is trying to encroach the same. The plaintiff came up with a plea they have already constructed a boundary wall and Government Quarters, therefore, temporary injunction has rightly been granted. No case for interference is made out in the matter.
05. In view of the above, Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi
