PRAKASH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

(2.) As per the case of the petitioners, after obtaining requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and its functionaries they raised necessary construction. However, a notice under Section 307(2) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short "Act of 1956") dated 11.08.2000 (Annexure-P/4) was issued by respondent no.4 City Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur to the first petitioner Prakash Chand Agarwal that he has raised construction contrary to the approved plan and directed to submit reply as to why illegal construction may not be dismantled.

(3.) The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the procedure so adopted by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and its functionaries dismantling the part of the building of the petitioners is in complete derogation to the principle of natural justice and their act is violative to the guarantee of right to hold property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Similarly the action of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and its authorities is in contravention to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel submits that overwhelming material has been placed that at all point of time whenever notice was given to the first petitioner, he submitted requisite reply but without giving a personal hearing to him or by holding how and in what manner the construction is illegal or contrary to sanctioned map the part of building has been dismantled. It has also been put-forth by him that notice under Section 307(2) of the Act of 1956 (Annexure-P/4) is vague on its face for the simple reason that how and in what manner the construction which was raised by the petitioners was in contravention to the sanctioned map, nothing has been indicated in the said notice. It has been further propounded by learned Senior Counsel that the Collector, Jabalpur directed to hold a magisterial enquiry and accordingly the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jabalpur conducted the enquiry holding that act of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and its authorities to dismantle the part of the building was in contravention to the law but simultaneously it was further held that despite the first petitioner was noticed to remove the illegal construction in accordance with law instead of removing the same, in a hurried manner he completed the construction. The copy of enquiry report dated 22.02.2001 has been separately filed alongwith application (I.A. No.7738/2010) to take the enquiry report on record.