MUNICIPALITY Vs. GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in both these appeals common question of law arise and they are decided by common judgment by the trial Court, they are heard and decided together.

(2.) In First Appeal No. 175/95 respondent No. 1 Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter, referred to as "GAIL") filed a civil suit and, in First Appeal No. 1/96 respondent No. 1 National Fertilizers Limited (hereinafter, referred to as "NFL") filed a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Guna for declaration and perpetual injunction. Prayer in the suit filed by the GAIL was that the defendants 2 and 3 i.e. Director, Town and Country Planning and Joint Director, Town and Country Planning have no jurisdiction to permit defendant No. 4 Chief Executive Officer, Special Area Development Authority, Reghogarh to recover the external development fees. It is further prayed that the defendant No. 6 Tehsildar, Tehsil Reghogarh, District Guna has no jurisdiction to recover the said fee from the plaintiff which is a Government of India Undertaking. Similarly, in the suit filed by the NFL, it is prayed that the recovery of Rs. 2,53,00000/- (Rs. Two crore fifty three lac) as external development charge and its recovery as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code be declared as void ab initio and the defendants be restrained by issuing perpetual injunction from recovering the said fee from the plaintiff. In this suit, the plaintiff has impleaded the State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Area Development Authority, Municipal Council, Raghogarh and the Tehsildar K. R. Katroliya by name, whereas in the civil suit filed by the GAIL. Special Area Development Authority has not been impleaded as party but Chief Executive Officer of the Special Area Development Authority is impleaded as a party. Subsequently, Municipal Council, Raghogarh has been impleaded as a party, whereas NFL has impleaded Municipal Council as party in the suit. With the consent of the parties, no evidence was recorded and the trial Court after hearing arguments decreed the suit and has declared that the defendants had no right to recover the external development fee from the plaintiff and parties shall bear their own costs.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant challenged the decree on three grounds :- (i) that the suit has been filed before expiry of period of notice under Section 80 CPC, and no suit is maintainable against the appellant Municipal Council without notice under Section 319 of the Municipalities Act; (ii) that since the plaintiff is avoiding recovery worth Rs. 2,53 lacs, therefore, without payment of ad valorem court fee suit ought to have been dismissed or the trial Court should have rejected the plaint for insufficient payment of court fee.