RASHIK HASAN Vs. NAGAR NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff having lost from two Courts below has taken the shelter of this Court by filing this appeal under section 100 CPC. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect to the suit property, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint. According to the plaintiff the suit property was purchased by him on 28.5.1992 vide registered sale-deed from Pushpa Mayoor Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bhopal through its President Nawab Khan. The possession of the suit property was also delivered to him. The plaintiff thereafter took NOC from Nazul Department and on 8.11.2001 deposited a sum of Rs. 26,700/- for development charges etc. in the office of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal (defendant No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The plaintiff submitted requisite application for construction of house in the office of Municipal Corporation which was allowed on 7.1.2003. The necessary charges were also deposited by him. Thereafter the plaintiff moved necessary permission for construction of the house in the Corporation.

(2.) Further it has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that necessary building material has been collected at the site by him and the construction work has started. But on 21.6.2003 employees of second defendant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (in short, 'Mandi Samiti') with the help of police personnel arrived at the spot and informed the plaintiff that the permission of the house construction granted in favour of plaintiff has been cancelled and asked him not to raise any construction. According to plaintiff, till the date of filing of the suit he has not received any order of cancellation to construct the house nor he has been informed that any complaint is made against him. Even if the permission order to construct the house has been cancelled by the Corporation, the same is in contravention to the principles of natural justice because without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, in an arbitrary manner the permission order has been cancelled. The plaintiff hence sent a notice by registered AD post under section 401 to the Corporation and also sent notice by registered AD post under section 67 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam').

(3.) It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the notice period he also submitted an MJC which has been registered as 24/2003 and with the permission of the Court plaintiff is filing the present suit. It is also pleaded in the plaint that without providing any opportunity to the plaintiff, on the complaint made by the Mandi Samiti, permission for construction of the house granted in his favour on 4.2.2003 has been set aside on 9.5.2003 which is illegal and void because the same has been cancelled without affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. Hence, a decree of injunction has been sought by the plaintiff against the defendants that they should not interfere in his possession on the suit property. A declaratory decree has also been sought that order dated 9.5.2003 of the Corporation cancelling the order to construct the building in favour of plaintiff be declared as null and void.