Shyamkali Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5924 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
                                               ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 6954 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHYAMKALI SHARMA W/O SATANAND SHARMA, AGED
                          ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O
                          HOUSE NO. K-210 RAJVED COLONY, KOLAR ROAD
                          BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI A.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
                                PRINCIPAL      SECRETARY,       URBAN
                                ADMINISTRATION    AND     DEVELOPMENT
                                DEPARTMENT, VALLBH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHOPAL THROUGH
                                COM M ISSIONER, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    THE SUB ENGINEER (BUILDING PERMISSION
                                BRANCH) MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHOPAL,
                                DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    RAMNATH SHARMA S/O SHRI S.N. SHARMA,
                                AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O E-5/137 ARERA
                                COLONY, BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY MS. PRIYANKA MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 4/12/2023 5:14:09 PM

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(i) The Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to quash the order/notice impugned (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider her compounding application pending before them in preview of Section 308-A (5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 read with Rule 5 of M.P. Municipal Relaxation Rule, 2016, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other relief in pursuant to compensation or writ or direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper is looking the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the

petitioner including the cost of the litigation.

By way of interim relief, it is prayed that the petitioner may not be dispossess and the impugned order be stayed.

Facts as enumerated in the petition show that the petitioner is the owner of shop No.9 situated at village Gehukheda, Kolar Bhopal. The notice dated 03.11.2021 was issued to her by the authority Municipal Corporation, Bhopal under Section 307 (2) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, to remove unauthorized construction. The documents annexed to the petition show that the petitioner thereafter filed a Civil Suit No.890-A/2021 against the Municipal Corporation as well as one Ramnath Sharma, Builder, who is also made respondent No.4 in the present petition, seeking the same relief i.e. to declare the notice dated 03.11.2021 and 12.11.2021 as illegal and void and not to demolish or dispossess the petitioner from her shop.

The trial Court after considering the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the parties partly allowed the suit on 30.11.2022 directing the petitioner to Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 4/12/2023 5:14:09 PM

file an application under the Municipal Corporation Rules for compounding within one month of the date of decree. The Municipal Corporation was further directed that only after considering the application of petitioner on merits, a decision regarding compounding or demolishing may be taken up by the respondent Corporation. The documents also show that the offline application was filed by the petitioner despite the fact that she knew that offline applications were not accepted as is also evident from para 20 of the judgment dated 30.11.2022. The Municipal Corporation thereafter asked her to submit the application online which was submitted by the petitioner on 06.02.2023. This petition is still pending consideration before the Municipal Corporation Authorities. However, the petitioner has filed this petition on 21.03.2023 seeking the relief as aforestated.

Once the competent Civil Court has held that the notice issued by the Corporation was not illegal and the part relief has also been granted to the petitioner in the form of submitting an online application which has to be decided on merits and only after that the Corporation can take decision regarding compounding or demolishing of the property, there was no occasion for the petitioner in such a situation to file the present petition as the Municipal Corporation, who was party to the Civil Suit is also bound by the decree.

The relief claimed regarding quashing of the notice before the Civil Court

had already been declined. The same cannot be stayed at this stage.

Under the circumstances, this petition is misused of the process of Court and the same is dismissed accordingly.

(NANDITA DUBEY) Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 4/12/2023 5:14:09 PM

JUDGE b

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 4/12/2023 5:14:09 PM