Raju Narwade vs The State Of M.P. And Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12647 MP

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                      CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
             ON THE 21st OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
             WRIT PETITION NO. 1266 OF 2005

BETWEEN:-

RAJU NARWADE S/O AHELAL NARWADE, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, JUGGI (SLUM) NO.122, NEAR
WATER TANK, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHEKHAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     THROUGH       THE       SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT    OF   HOUSING    AND
     ENVIRONMENT,   VALLABH    BHAWAN,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   COLLECTOR, BHOPAL OLD SECRETARIAT,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)


3.   UJJWAL SHIKSHA VIKAS SAMITI (REGD.)
     THROUGH SECRETARY SURAJ BHATIA, E-6
     NEAR WATER TANK JANTA COLONY
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            2




4.    CAPITAL PROJECT THROUGH CHIEF
      ENGINEER CAPITAL PROJECT E -5, BITTAN
      MARKET ARERA COLONY (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.D. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                       ORDER

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

"a) To call for the entire record of the respondent no.2 and 4 pertaining to the impugned illegal action for its kind perusal;

b) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing, the respondents to restrain the respondent no.3 for constructing a school for its own commercial purpose. And further the allotment of the site in favour of respondent No.3 if any be cancelled; and

c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in view of aforesaid facts and grounds may kindly be allow in favor of petitioner."

2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent - State have allotted the land in favour of the respondent No.3 in an illegal manner. That there are various procedures that are required in order to effect the lawful allotment or sale of a land. In the instant case, a lease has been executed for a very concessional rate. Hence, the instant petition.

3. A return has been filed by the State. They have placed on record a

copy of the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.01-A of 2002 dated 27.08.2003. In terms whereof, a mandatory injunction has been issued in favour of the plaintiff namely respondent No.3 to the effect that a lease deed be executed by the respondent - State in favour of the respondent No.3. Hence, it is pleaded that nothing remains for consideration in this petition.

4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter.

5. The petitioner has filed this petition on the following grounds:-

"6.1 Because the impugned proposed action of respondent is illegal, arbitrary and malafide and in violation of fundamental right of the petitioner;

6.2 Because the respondent ought to have construct a school for the children of the slum dwellers of the Sai Baba Nagar Juggi Basti;

6.3 Because the respondents are misusing the grant earlier sanctioned by Shri Prafull Maheshwari, the Member of Parliament for construction of the school; and 6.4 The petitioner seeks liberty of this Hon'ble Court to raise further grounds of petition at the time of hearing."

6. On considering the grounds pleaded, we are of the view that the same would stand covered under the decree of the civil court. Once the civil court has decreed the suit to execute a lease deed in favour of the respondent No.3, we do not think that it is open for us to reagitate the same issue again and again. We do not find any ground that has been raised by the petitioner with regard to inadequacy of the consideration. The first appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial

court filed before this court has since been withdrawn, therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial court has attained finality. There is no challenge to the same. In view of the decree of the civil court, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition.

7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed off.

                                    (RAVI MALIMATH)                              (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                      CHIEF JUSTICE                                   JUDGE
                              sj




Digitally signed by SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Date: 2022.09.24 10:34:27 +05'30'