Madhya Pradesh High Court
Digpal Singh Thakur vs Union Of India on 19 April, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 8934 of 2022
Between:-
DIGPAL SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI DAULAT SINGH
THAKUR , AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS JAGDISH WARD, TEHSIL GADAKOTA
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HARJAS SINGH CHHABRA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM
ENTERPRISES UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
R EV EN U E VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH ITS
S E C R E TA R Y KEKAR VIKASKHAND RAHLI
DISTRICT SAGAR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. JABALPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH
COM M IS S ION ER JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI, DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
against a show cause notice dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P/4) issued by
respondent No.4/Gram Panchayat Kenkara, Block Rahli, District Sagar, whereby,
the petitioner has been directed to remove the construction within a period of three
Signature Not Verified
SAN
days or they will take action for demolition of the same.
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.04.20 10:08:38 IST It is submitted that a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice has
been filed by the petitioner pointing out the fact that the petitioner has purchased
the property by a registered sale deed. As a detailed reply has been filed to the
show cause notice, an innocuous prayer is made to direct the authorities to
consider and decide the case of the petitioner after giving audience to him as show
cause notice has been issued without inquiring into the matter and no proper
opportunity of hearing evidence is made. Placing reliance upon a judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakhan Singh vs. State of M.P. and
others, W.P.No.8719/2020, wherein in identical circumstances, a petition was
disposed of directing the authorities to consider reply of the petitioner after
providing opportunity of hearing and pass a final order and communicate the
outcome to the petitioner. It was further observed that in case any adverse order is
passed against the petitioner, breathing time be granted to enable him to assail the
order before the appropriate authority. The similar relief has been claimed by the
petitioner in the present petition.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
prayer pointing out the fact that only a show cause notice has been issued, against
which, the petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Kunishetty
Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28, however, he could not dispute the fact that a
reply to the show cause notice has been filed by the petitioner as well as the
judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Lakhan Singh (supra).
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Undisputed facts of the case are that a show cause notice has been issued
for demolition of the property within three days to the petitioner, failing which,
coercive action for demolition will be taken; a reply to the aforesaid show cause
notice has been filed by the petitioner and the matter is pending consideration
before the authorities.
In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Lakhan Singh (supra) has observed as under:
"1. The official respondents are directed to inform the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.04.20 10:08:38 IST
by way of notice, the reasons for marking the property as
encroachment. If intention is to demolish then petitioner be afforded
reasonable opportunity of being head and thereafter pass a speaking
order and communicating the same to the petitioner by any legitimate
mode.
2. After completion of the aforesaid exercise the petitioner would
be afforded thirty (30) working day's time to avail the remedy available
in law against the order passed by the official respondents and only
thereafter the respondents are free to proceed in accordance with law."
In such circumstances, as the property has been purchased by a registered
sale deed, which has been filed alongwith this petition, this Court deem it
appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondents/authorities to
consider and decide the case of the petitioner after taking into consideration the
reply submitted by him and also consider the documents which have been filed by
the petitioner in support of his case and provide audience to the petitioner.
The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of 30 days from today.
In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, for a period of
further ten days, no coercive action for demolition of the property be taken to
enable the petitioner to assail the order before the competent authority in
accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined anything on the merits of the
case.
C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR
JHARIYA
Date: 2022.04.20 10:08:38 IST
