NARAYAN MAHOR Vs. MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 115 of CPC r.w. Sec. 392 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 has been filed against the order dtd. 4/8/2017 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in M.J.C. No. 400087/2013, by which an application filed by applicant under Sec. 307(5) of Municipal Corporation Act has been rejected.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that applicant filed an application under Sec. 307(5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act on the ground that applicant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the residents of the same colony i.e. Sheikh Ki Bagia, Rassi Wali Mohalla, Lashkar, Gwalior. It was alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have constructed over the government land and that too without taking any building permission. Property in question was marked with red colour in the attached map and said property is the disputed property. When respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were raising construction, then applicant had also stopped them and had pleaded that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should not raise construction over the government land, but respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not agree and they continued with the construction. Thereafter, applicant gave an information to respondent No. 3, but since respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were influential persons, therefore respondent No. 3 did not take any action. Thus, an application under Sec. 307(5) of Municipal Corporation Act was filed.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and admitted that applicant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the residents of the same colony. However, it was denied that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had encroached upon the government land. It was pleaded that the house in question was constructed by their father Babulal after obtaining building permission from the Municipal Corporation on 10/4/1975. In a special plea, it was pleaded that initially also, one suit was filed by applicant against respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which was registered as Case No. 186A/2009, which has been dismissed by the court of competent jurisdiction by order dtd. 30/7/2012, therefore, present application is barred by the principle of res judicata.