RANIPET MUNICIPALITY Vs. SHAMSHEERKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C.R.P. and C.M.P. coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition the order of the court below and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Bagyalakshmi, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. D. Rajagopal, Advocate for the respondent, the court made the following order: -- This is a revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order of the lower court in I. A. No. 499 of 1996 in O. S. No. 396 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Ranipet.

(2.) THE material facts on the basis of which this revision is filed may be summarised as follows: -- The petitioner is the Ranipet Municipality represented by its Commissioner. The plaint schedule property admittedly belongs to the petitioner. It is stated to be a weekly market. It is said that the respondent's grand father took the vacant land on lease from the petitioner at Ranipet and the same was being used by him till 1966. Even in the year 1960, the respondent's grand father had put up some superstructures on the site and he has been using the same as weekly market till his lifetime in 1970. After his death, his grandmother continued the arrangement and now it is the case of the respondent that he has been making use of the same and whatever amount is payable to the petitioner is also being paid. It is said that the respondent is in possession for the last sixteen years and his ancestors possessed the same for more than twenty years. It is averred that the respondent was repeatedly called upon by the traders to put up some building and sheds. Since the petitioner was not keen in helping the traders, the respondent for smooth and effective functioning of the cattle shandy, had pulled down the temporary shed and other amenities when they became old. It is said that the respondent put up pucca construction in the land for the purpose of weekly market at his own cost, by spending about Rs. 2,50,000/- for the above said construction. The respondent is collecting charges from the traders, those who came and sell their goods in the weekly market by virtue of the lease. On 29-12-1993, the petitioner issued a notification, wherein it was informed that a public auction is to be held on 12-12-1994 in respect of the land. Since the conduct of the petitioner was arbitrary, the respondent filed a suit O. S. No. 134 of 1994 and obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting the auction. The auction was stopped and as the notification was no more in force. O. S. No. 134 of 1994 was issued by the petitioner on 13-12-1994 proposing to hold an auction on 10-2-1995. Again the plaintiff filed O. S. 2244 of 1995 and obtained an order of interim injunction in the City Civil Court. As the notification was no more in force, O. S. No. 134 of 1994 was also withdrawn. A further notification was issued by the petitioner on 13-12-1994 proposing to hold an auction on 10-2-1995.

(3.) IN the counter statement, the petitioner seriously opposed the claim of the respondent. It is stated that even though the Municipality had filed a Caveat as O. P. No. 55 of 1996 the lower court without taking into consideration of the same, passed an ex parte order of injunction and that order, therefore, is illegal and improper. It is further stated that the suit O. S. No. 134 of 1994 filed by the respondent was decided on merits and the injunction application was also dismissed. Later, he also filed a Writ Petition before this Court as W. P. No. 3079 of 1994. and moved for interim injunction by filing W. M. P. No. 4986 of 1994 in that writ petition. The W. M. P. was dismissed and subsequently without getting liberty to file another suit, the writ petition was also withdrawn. The petitioner also denied the fact that the respondent had at any point of time put up any construction. It is further said that it is the duty of the petitioner to auction the right to collect the market fees and in view of the various orders of injunction passed from time to time, the Municipal Authorities are prevented from discharging their duties by auctioning the right to collect market fees in order to augment their revenue and the auction of the respondent is highly unjustified and the filing of suits one after the other by the respondent is really vexatious and at any rate, the right the plaintiff is only to collect the market fee from the traders.