Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 819 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMKUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI VANSHPATI SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 3 MOHALLA,
NH-7 ROAD, MAUGANJ, NAGAR PARISHAD MAUGANJ
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAKASH UPADHYAY-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.P. URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE REWA DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISION OFFICER (REVENUE) SUB DIVISION
MAUGANJ, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER NAGAR PARISHAD,
MAUGANJ DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY-DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed assailing the notice dated 03/01/2023
(Annexure P/1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to an auction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/31/2023
1:19:19 PM
conducted at the behest of the Nagar Parishad, Mauganj District, Rewa, the
petitioner's bid was found to be highest and was accordingly accepted.
Thereafter, the allotment of the shop in question was made in favour of the
petitioner. A rent agreement was also executed between the petitioner and Nagar
Parishad. The petitioner thereafter started running his medical shop in the said
rented shop peacefully and so also paying the statutory tax and rent etc.
Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice which is contained in Annexure
P/6 by which the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the
unauthorised construction made in the shop in question be not removed. The
said notice was replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 31/12/2022 (Annexure
P/7). Thereafter, suddenly the respondents have issued impugned notice dated
03/01/2023.
3. It is contended that if the notice which is contained in Annexure P/6
and in the impugned notice dated 03/01/2023 are placed at a juxtaposition, the
same would reveal that the respondents have taken recourse to a complete volte
face inasmuch as in the earlier show cause motice, the allegations against the
petitioners pertaining to unauthorised encroachment whereas in the impugned
notice dated 03/01/2023, the petitioner has been called upon to vacate the shop
in question inasmuch as the same is required for widening of the road. Thus,
learned counsel while placing reliance in the judgment of this Court in WP
No.1880/2021 (Vineeta Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors.) submits that the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while entering appearance on
advance notice on behalf of respondent No.1, 2 & 3 submits that the notice has
been issued in the public interest. A perusal of the notice itself reflects that the
Signature Not Verified
shop is to be demolished for the purposes of widening of the road, therefore, it
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/31/2023
1:19:19 PM
is not a case where the petitioner is being sought to be evicted and the
possession of the shop is to be taken over back by the Nagar Parishat,
Mauganj, Rewa. It is also contended by the counsel that the petitioner cannot
club Annexure P/6 with the Annexure P/1 inasmuch as both the notices are
entirely different. It is also contended by the counsel that if the petitioner has
any claim as regards the compensation or also refund of any advance deposited
by the petition at the time of execution of rent agreement, the petitioner can
always approach before the authority. So far as this petition is concerned, no
interference is warranted.
5. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is occupying the shop in question on the strength of the
rent agreement which has been brought on record as Annexure P/3. A perusal
of the rent agreement reflects that the same was executed for a period of 35
months which is evident from its opening paragraph. Though there is clause 3 in
the agreement which provides for the enhancement of monthly rent after 3 years
as well. Therefore undisputedly the shop in question which is occupied by the
present petitioner belongs to the Nagar Parishad, Mauganj, Rewa and the
petitioner in the capacity of tenant is occupying the same. It is also Undisputed
that the petitioner herein was issued a show cause notice which is contained in
Annexure P/6 and by the said show cause notice, the allegations against the
petitioner were levelled that he has made unauthorized construction in the rental
premises. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner which is
contained in (Annexure P/7) and in the said reply, the petitioner disputed the
contents of the notice. Thereafter, notice dated 03/01/2023 has been issued to
the petitioner which is reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/31/2023
1:19:19 PM
dk;kZy; uxj ifj"kn eÃÂÂ...xat ftyk jhok ¼e-iz-½
[email protected]@2023 fnukad %&[email protected]@2023
izfr]
Jh jke dqekj 'kqDyk firk oa'kifr 'kqDyk]
,u,p 07 jksM pkd eksM+ ds ikl
okMZ 03 eÃÂÂ...xat
fo"k;%& if'peh Hkou ukdk dh nqdku [kkyh fd, tkus ckor~A
mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ds laca/k es vkidks lwpuk nh tkrh gS fd if'peh
Hkou ukdk dh nqdku fudk; }kjk 35 eghuks ds fy, nh x;h Fkh ijUrq orZeku es
lM+d foLrkj ds fy, ml nqdku dks gVk;s tkus dh vko';drk gSA
vr% vki lwpuk izkIr mijkar 03 fnol ds Hkhrj nqdku [kkyh dj nsa
vU;Fkk dh fLFkr es fudk; }kjk nqdku [kkyh djk nh tkosxh ftldh leLr tckonkjh
vkidh Lo;a dh gksxhA
eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh
uxj ifj"kn emxat
ftyk jhok ¼e-iz-½
7. A perusal of the notice reflects that the Nagar Parishad, Mauganj,
Rewa has issued the notice to the petitioner to vacate the shop in question
inasmuch as the said promises is needed for widening of the road. Therefore,
this is not a case where the tenant is being evicted and the possession of the
property in question is being taken back by the owner. On the contrary, the
authority has exercised its power conferred under Section 179 of the
Municipality Act, 1961. It is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council to
widen the road and the provisions which are contained in section 179 of the
Signature Not Verified
Municipality Act, 1961 has direct nexus with the larger public Interest and
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/31/2023
1:19:19 PM
therefore any interference with the said action would have direct bearing on the
widening of the road which undisputedly is a project in the interest of public at
large.
8. In view of the aforesaid statuary provisions contained in Section 179
of the Municipal Council Act, no interfere is warranted and the reliance as
placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vineeta Singh (Supra) is
misplaced and is of no assistance inasmuch as in the said case there was no
notice by the concerned local body for any public purpose like widening of the
road. On the contrary, in that case, the petitioner therein was called upon to
remove his encroachment on the property concerned therein.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/31/2023
1:19:19 PM
