Bakir Hussain vs Indore Development Authority
2023 Latest Caselaw 13053 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                               ON THE 10 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 11261 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    BAKIR HUSSAIN S/O LATE SHRI ASGAR ALI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 66-67
                                 SCHEME NO. 102 MANIKBAGH ROAD (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    IKBAL HUSAIN S/O LATE SHRI AZGAR ALI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VYAPAR 66 AND
                                 67 YOJNA KRAMANK 102 MANIKBAGH ROAD
                                 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONERS
                           (SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THR. MUKHYA
                           KARYAPALK ADHIKARI INDORE VIKAS PRADIKARAN
                           6, 7 RACE COURSE ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI VIVEK DALAL, LEARNED COUNSEL)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 12.06.2020 issued by the respondent whereby they have asked the petitioners to vacate the possession of Plot No. 67 of scheme called Yojna No. 102 in compliance to the various orders passed by the Courts.

2 . Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-08-2023 17:22:21

nothing, but is a consequential order of the orders passed by various Courts.

3 . The facts of the case are that the petitioners earlier filed the writ petition WP No. 8597/2015. The said petition was challenging the order of cancellation of lease granted by the respondent for changing the use of land from residential to commercial activity. The said writ petition was disposed off in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Sajni Bajaj vs. Indore Development Authority, 2012 (1) MPLJ 53 directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. The petitioners filed writ appeal WA No. 11/2016. The said writ appeal was disposed off in favour of the petitioners following the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Mittal &

Ors. vs. State of UP, (2012) 2 SCC 232 . The said writ appeal was disposed off by order dated 01.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/Indore Development Authority filed SLP. The SLP was allowed and the Apex Court set aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal and restored the order of learned Single Judge. The effect of the order was that the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Civil Court. It is further stated that after the order passed by the Apex Court, the petitioners filed Civil suit along with an application for temporary injunction. The injunction was rejected and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Thus, the petitioners lost injunction in both the Courts. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of refusal of injunction, they filed MP No. 1349/2020. The said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application before the Civil Court. It is stated that thereafter the Civil Suit has been withdrawn by the petitioners. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to vacate the plot in question in compliance to the various orders of the Court. The operative part of the order reads as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-08-2023 17:22:21

v r % ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy uacj 4654@2019 ,oa 4655@2019 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 06&05&2019 ,oa fjV fiVh'ku uacj 8599@2015 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18&12&2015 ,oa fnokuh eqdnek uacj 860&,@2019 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24&08&2019 rFkk fofo/k fnokuh vihy dzekad 169@2019 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 29&01&2020 ds dze esa vki ;kstuk dzekad 102 ds Hkw[k.M dzekad 66 dk fjDr dCtk 'kkafriw.kZ rjhds ls izkf/kdkjh ds dk;Zi kyu ;a=h Jh /kesZU nz dBy dks fnukad 19&06&2020 dks izk r% 11 cts lqi qn Z djus dk d"V djsaA

4. Thus, the impugned order does not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioners as the said order is nothing, but a consequential order of various orders passed by the Courts. Thus, the petition being devoid of merit and substance is dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE soumya

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 10-08-2023 17:22:21