Municipal Corp.,Bhopal vs Santi Bai Ahirwar
2022 Latest Caselaw 10023 MP

                                                           1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                  ON THE 20th OF JULY, 2022

                                             FIRST APPEAL No. 142 of 1997

                                 Between:-
                                 MUNICIPAL    CORPORATION  BHOPAL,
                                 THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER, BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                                 (BY MS. ANKITA KHARE-ADVOCATE)

                                 AND

                                 SANTI BAI AHIRWAR W/O RAJU AHIRWAR, R/O
                                 HOUSE NO.3, GALI NO.3, IBRAHIMGANJ,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                                 (SHRI UMESH SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT )

                            Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                      following:
                                                          JUDGMENT

This First Appeal has been filed by defendant/appellant/Municipal Corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1995 passed by

10th Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.1/95, whereby suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for mandatory injunction and for compensation amounting to Rs.37,000/- so also the loss of Rs.100/- per day till the rehabilitation of the plaintiff, was decreed partly only to the extent of compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

Signature SAN Not 2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted the suit Verified

Digitally signed by with the allegations that she was permitted by the defendant to do the business SWETA SAHU Date: 2022.07.21 11:03:38 IST

on the land in question and according to the allotment made to her, she started paying the rent regularly, but without giving any notice, the appellant/defendant dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent from the land in question, dismantled the shop and ruined the goods lying therein. She prayed that she should be rehabilitated on other place and be granted compensation as prayed in the plaint.

3. The appellant/defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiff made encroachment in excess of the allotted area from where she was removed legally due to widening of the road and no loss was caused to the plaintiff, hence she is

not entitled for any relief. It was also contended that on 03.05.1991 the plaintiff has been allotted a shop admeasuring 6X8 sqft. on rent of Rs.90/- per month, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial court framed as many as six issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after having considered entire material available on record and on the basis of admission made by defendant witness-Nekram, held that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the land in question without giving any notice and the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.15,000/- and accordingly granted decree of compensation of Rs.15,000/- vide its judgment and decree dated 23.12.1995.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the plaintiff was encroacher over the land in question, therefore, she was rightly removed from the land and as the plaintiff has failed to produce the documents with regard to loss allegedly caused to her, therefore, learned court below has erred in granting decree of compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that as later on the plaintiff was given shop admeasuring 6X8

sqft. on 03.05.1991, therefore, now the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

6. Following point for determination is involved in the present appeal :

"Whether in absence of any document of allotment and in absence of documentary evidence regarding loss caused to the plaintiff, learned trial court has erred in granting decree of Rs,15,000/- in favour of plaintiff/respondent."

7. As has been held by learned trial court and as has been admitted by witness of defendant, namely Nekram, it is undisputed position available on record that plaintiff was allotted the disputed land for doing business although over an area 5X5 sqft. It is also undisputed fact that in the garb of plea of encroachment and due to widening of road, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the entire area, including the area which was allotted to her. As the plaintiff was dispossessed even without giving notice, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the plaintiff was dispossessed wrongly by the defendant. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao AIR 1989 SC 2097 , even a licensee cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. As such there is no illegality in the findings recorded by learned trial court that the plaintiff was allotted the land in question and the defendant dispossessed her illegally.

8. Now the only question is about quantum of grant of

compensation. In support of the fact that the plaintiff was doing business of tea stall, where she also kept one fridge for selling the cold-drink etc. and for which she also took a loan of Rs.12,500/- from the bank, the plaintiff has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.

9. After considering the documents with regard to taking of loan

from the Bank of India and there being no rebuttal evidence about the same, this Court does not find any illegality in granting decree of compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- only as against the claim made by plaintiff.

10. As the plaintiff has been allotted shop admeasuring 6X8 sqft on 03.05.1991 by the defendant, therefore, learned trial court has rightly refused to pass any decree with regard to rehabilitation of the plaintiff.

11. Accordingly, there being no illegality in the judgment and decree passed by trial court, the appeal is hereby dismissed. However no order as to costs.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss