Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The remedy is specifically designed for situations involving unauthorized or illegal constructions, and the owner of such a building can approach the District Court under this section ["Damodar Singh Yadav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1118"] ["Vijay Kumar Garg vs Indore Municipal Corporation - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of urban development and municipal regulations in Madhya Pradesh, property owners often face challenges when their constructions are deemed non-compliant. A common question arises: Is the remedy under Section 307(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, available to the owner of such a building? This provision allows applications to the District Court for an injunction to remove or alter contravening buildings. However, judicial interpretations have drawn a clear line, typically excluding owners from this remedy to safeguard public interest.
This blog post delves into the statutory framework, key court precedents, and practical implications, drawing from established case law. Note that this is general information based on precedents and should not be considered specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
No, the remedy under Section 307(5) is not available to the owner of the contravening building. This subsection preserves the right of the Municipal Corporation or any other person (excluding the owner) to seek an injunction for removal or alteration. Courts have consistently interpreted this to protect public interest against unauthorized constructions, holding that including the owner would defeat the legislative purpose. Laxmi Prasad Tamrkar VS Muncipal Corporation, Raipur - 1979 0 Supreme(MP) 623Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160
Key points include:- Explicit exclusion: The phrase any other person means persons affected by the construction, not the owner responsible for it. Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160- Legislative intent: The section's heading, Power to require removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws or any scheme or any other requirements, targets enforcement against non-compliant works. Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160Laxmi Prasad Tamrkar VS Muncipal Corporation, Raipur - 1979 0 Supreme(MP) 623- Owner's alternatives: Owners facing demolition must pursue writ petitions, civil suits, or other remedies, not this provision. Damodar Singh Yadav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1118
Section 307(5) states: Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of this Act or the bye-laws made thereunder... Damodar Singh Yadav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1118
Courts interpret any other person restrictively: Words 'any other person' has to be given a meaning which the subsection connotes in the ordinary common sense. They would mean the persons who might be affected by such a construction excluding the one who has made the construction otherwise there was no meaning of inserting sub-section (5). Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160
This aligns with the provision supplementing the Commissioner's powers under subsections (1)-(4), focusing on enforcement rather than owner protection. Even in cases of approved plans with Corporation delay, compensation is available only if an eligible applicant (Corporation or non-owner) secures the injunction. Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160
Additional sources reinforce this independence: The remedy of the Corporation and any other person under Sub-section (5) of Section 307 of the Act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of Section 91 of the C. P... Gokul Apartment Association Thr Its President Shri Sushil Agrawal vs Indore Municipal Corporation - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5340 Here, a petitioner was noted as not falling within Section 307(5), implying owner exclusion.
In a pivotal case, where an owner sought an injunction against demolition after a notice for deviations, the court ruled: 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. Laxmi Prasad Tamrkar VS Muncipal Corporation, Raipur - 1979 0 Supreme(MP) 623
This was upheld on revision: the provisions of said sub section can only be invoked by Corporation or any other person except the owner of the building. Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160 The purpose is a special right... on the Municipal Corporation to seek injunction from the District Court to get the improper construction demolished.
Broader locus standi discussions affirm wide access for non-owners. One ruling held: the locus standi under sub-section (5) of Section 307 of the Act of 1956 is not restricted to a person affected by the violation complained of but encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act applies. Dilip Kaushal VS State of M. P. - 2008 Supreme(MP) 808Dilip Kaushal VS State of M. P. - 2008 Supreme(MP) 798 Overruling narrower views, it emphasized: Not only the Corporation but every other person has been given the right to apply... Dilip Kaushal VS State of M. P. - 2008 Supreme(MP) 808 Yet, this excludes owners, as per specific precedents.
Non-owners frequently succeed under this provision:- A petitioner challenged a neighbor's unauthorized chabutra on a colony road: it has an application to every construction which is made without due sanction from the concerned Municipal Corporation. Suresh Agrawal VS Municipal Corporation, Gwalior - 2005 0 Supreme(MP) 1026- In boundary disputes, non-owners used 307(5) when the Corporation failed to act, with courts directing evidentiary tools like Local Commissioner reports. Savitri Agrawal VS Manish Gupta - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 224- Aggrieved petitioners were directed: approach the District Court under 307(5) as an efficacious remedy. Damodar Singh Yadav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1118
Other cases highlight it as an alternative remedy, dismissing writs: As there is an equally efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 307(5) of M.P Municipal Corporation Act, interference is declined. Glen Allan Anthony D Souza vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 28009Rohit Jagwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Owners cannot use 307(5) defensively; writs for mandamus against inaction are often dismissed with liberty for eligible applicants. Damodar Singh Yadav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1118Jogesh VS Indore Municipal Corporation - 2016 0 Supreme(MP) 790
No exceptions for owners exist, even with approved plans or delays. Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160 It applies to unauthorized buildings on public land too, but owner exclusion remains absolute. Suresh Agrawal VS Municipal Corporation, Gwalior - 2005 0 Supreme(MP) 1026
Related provisions like Section 294 require permissions, and illegal constructions trigger Commissioner powers under Section 307. Sanjay Kumar VS Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Indore - 2016 Supreme(MP) 617
One source clarifies: under Section 307 (5) of the Act, 1956 the word ‘any other person’ includes all persons other than a corporation. Mukesh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 16197 This broadens non-owner access without aiding owners.
Section 307(5) empowers the Municipal Corporation and affected non-owners to enforce compliance, excluding building owners to prevent undermining enforcement. Supported by precedents like Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160 and Laxmi Prasad Tamrkar VS Muncipal Corporation, Raipur - 1979 0 Supreme(MP) 623, this upholds public interest in planned urban growth.
Property owners must explore alternatives promptly upon receiving notices. While courts interpret any other person broadly for residents Dilip Kaushal VS State of M. P. - 2008 Supreme(MP) 808, owner-specific exclusion is firm.
Stay compliant with bye-laws to avoid disputes. For personalized guidance, consult a local legal expert familiar with Madhya Pradesh municipal laws.
References (select key cases):1. Laxmi Prasad Tamrkar VS Muncipal Corporation, Raipur - 1979 0 Supreme(MP) 623: Owner exclusion directly addressed.2. Laxmi Prasad Tamrakar VS Municipal Corporation, Raipur - 1978 0 Supreme(MP) 160: In-depth reasoning on interpretation.3. Suresh Agrawal VS Municipal Corporation, Gwalior - 2005 0 Supreme(MP) 1026: Non-owner application success.4. Savitri Agrawal VS Manish Gupta - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 224: Boundary dispute usage.5. Damodar Singh Yadav VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1118: Directs to 307(5) as remedy.6. Dilip Kaushal VS State of M. P. - 2008 Supreme(MP) 808: Broad locus standi for non-owners.
#MPMunicipalAct, #BuildingLawIndia, #Section3075
Finding of the Court: The court found that under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act, if any construction ... Ratio Decidendi: Availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act. ... The court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Court under Section 307(5) of the Municipal ... Section 307#HL_END....
307(5) of the Act of 1956. ... 307(5) to approach District Court. ... Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Section 307(5) - Illegal construction - Petitioner alleges illegal construction by respondent contrary ... Even otherwise, the direction to the respondents to decide representation cannot be issued because that is not a statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, only remedy available#HL_EN....
The proceedings undertaken under Section 307 of the Act of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR 1956 can be assailed in terms of Section 307(5) of the Act and the petitioner has the remedy in terms of Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956, to approach the District Court. ... Sub-section (5) of Section 307 being relevant is reproduced hereunder : "(....
The remedy of the Corporation and any other person under Sub-section (5) of Section 307 of the Act of 1956 is independent of the provisions of Section 91 of the C. P. ... A rejoinder to the aforesaid reply has also been filed by the petitioner and it is submitted that since the petitioner does not fall within the definition of Section 307 (5) of the Act, he cannot challenge the same under Section ....
The petitioner filed an application under section 307(5) of the M. P. ... 307(5) of the Act. ... Issues: Whether the owner of a building can apply for an injunction under section 307(5) of the M. P. ... On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submitted that section 307 (5) is not available to one who is notic....
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. ... No doubt the later paragraph of the section enjoins the Municipal Corporation to compensate the owner of the building....
As there is an equally efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 307(5) of M.P Municipal Corporation Act, interference is declined. 5. ... The grievance raised in the present petition is in the realm of facts Section 307(5) of M.P Municipal Corporation Act gives a right to any person to apply before District Court for injuncti....
It is further stated that construction is without permission from the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and the same is liable to be removed under section 307 (5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Municipal Corporation did not submit its reply. ... ... Thus, the applicant was within his right to move an application under section 307 (5) of the Municipal #....
2008 (3) JLJ 171 has held that under Section 307 (5) of the Act, 1956 the word ‘any other person’ includes all persons other than a corporation. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. ... As per Section 307 of the Act, 1956, if any building is erected or re- erected in contravention of any town planning scheme mentioned under Section 291 or any bye-laws, the Commissioner without prejudice to his ....
Section 307(5) of Act, 1956 provides for such remedy which petitioner otherwise may invoke for his grievances. ... Section 307(5) deals as under:- Section 307:-Power to require, removal or alteration of work not in conformity with byelaws or any scheme or any other requirement.- (1)----------- (2)---------- (3)---------- (4)---------- (5) Nothing in this section shall affect then right ......
The respondent No. 1 is not claiming the ownership of the property in question. Thus if anybody has raised an unauthorized construction, then the same can be directed to be removed by District Court in exercise of powers under Section 307(5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. In the present case there is no dispute with regard to the title.
Since the respondent No.2 did not remove the illegal construction, the petitioner filed an application under section 307(5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. The said application was decided on 28.10.2015, whereby, respondent No.2 was ordered to remove the illegal construction raised by the respondent No.1. The said order was challenged before this High Court by filing a Civil Revision No. 3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has raised illegal construction to the extent that the road has been narrowed down and petitioner and other persons....
Power to require, removal or alteration of work not in conformity with byelaws or any scheme or any other requirement:- Admittedly, petitioner has not obtained any permission for the said construction and filed this petition, therefore, they have no right to seek the relief and prayed for dismissal of the petitions with cost. and under section 294 every person who intend to erect or re-erect the building shall submit an application to the Commissioner for its approval and if any construction is there without permission the Corporation has power under section 307 of the Municipal Co....
4. On 21-3-2006, the Division Bench issued notices in the writ petition and directed that the interim prayer shall be considered after service of notices on the respondents. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 appeared and raised a preliminary objection that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under sub-section (5) of Section 307 of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') to apply to the District Court for an injunction for removal or alteration of the building. The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, brought to the....
The counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, brought to the notice of the Division Bench that in Radhakishan Shanna v. Pravin Kumar and two others [1996 MPACJ 55], on a reference made by learned Single Judge of this Court, a Division Bench has held that under sub-section (5) of section 307 of the Act of 1956, the expression 'any other person' who has been conferred with the right to apply to the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of any building will mean such person who might feel directly affected by the building in regard to his individual right to property and....
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
