PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) They are heard finally. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the action of respondent No. 4, dismantling the house of the petitioner holding him to be a trespasser by passing an order (Annexure P-1), dated 29-11-11.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the title holder of the suit property and the suit property was sold in favour of his predecessor, Ramgopal in the year 1967 by Bhagwati Prasad, who has later on sold the suit property to the present petitioner.

(3.) Umpteen documents have been filed by the petitioner indicating that he is title holder and by inviting our attention to the order dated 5-9-1975 (Annexure P-2), it has been submitted that the respondent No. 4 compounded the construction which was raised without seeking permission, and thus, the respondent No. 4 is estopped from raising any dispute in regard to title of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is an encroacher. Learned Counsel submits that compounding fee was already deposited by the petitioner and He is regularly paying the Municipal Tax. Thus, it has been prayed that by allowing this petition, the impugned order (Annexure P-1), dated 29-11-2011 be quashed.