MEHMOOD ANSARI Vs. JAMEEL AHMED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the order dated 19.3.2015, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.21/2014, by the XI Addl. District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order of refusing to grant injunction, has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents stating that the petitioner has purchased the House No.198-A, Ashok Vihar Colony, Bhopal, from the defendant/respondent No.1 and is residing in the said house for the last 13 years. Initially the father of the respondent No.1 was residing near Bharat Talkies Crossing, which house was acquired by the Municipal Corporation for the purposes of widening of the road on 24.1.1991, and an alternative plot at Kevere-Wale Bagh was made available to the father of the defendant/ respondent No.1. The father of the defendant/respondent No.1 was again displaced from the said leased land because it falls within the Project Area of Bhoj Wetland and for the purposes of rehabilitation, the plot was made available to the father of the defendant/respondent No.1 at Ashok Vihar Colony. The father of the defendant/respondent No.1 was also paid Rs.5,000/- for the purposes of construction of the house. After the death of the father, the defendant/respondent No.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff in relation to the said house and from the date of purchase, the petitioner/plaintiff is residing in the said house. However, all of a sudden the respondents No. 2 and their officials have started threatening the petitioner/ plaintiff to dispossess from the suit house. Therefore, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial Court issued the notices of the said suit to the respondents. The defendant/ respondent No.1 admitted the whole claim of the petitioner by filing a written statement. However, the respondent No.2-the Municipal Corporation, contested the claim of the petitioner/ plaintiff. It was specifically denied by the defendant/ respondent No.2 that any plot was allotted to the father of the defendant/respondent No.1. It was specifically pleaded that many persons have been shifted from one place to another for the purposes of widening of the road. However, the leases were granted in all such cases. The Government of Madhya Pradesh in Local Administration Department found that the then administrator of the Municipal Corporation has acceded in exercise of jurisdiction and has gone against the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956 for short) for granting leases to such persons as valuable land was allotted to such persons on lease without following the procedure, on throwaway charges. The State Government took action in that respect and in exercise of power under Section 421(4) of the Act aforesaid, cancelled the allotment of lease of 172 persons. The name of the father of the respondent No.1 was also included at Serial No.18 of the said list of illegal allotment and, therefore, the said lease was cancelled by the State Government.