SHANTANU BAJPAYEE Vs. DHRAMENDRA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Sec. 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dtd. 22/07/2024 passed by 7th District Judge, Gwalior, in M.J.C. No. 364/2017, by which an application filed by applicant under Sec. 307(5) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 has been rejected.

(2.) It was the case of applicant that respondents No. 1 and 2 have started raising construction in the place of House No. 233/42 situated at Nai Sadak in front of Yadav Cinema, Lashkar, Gwalior without taking permission from the Municipal Corporation. Applicant had filed an application on 06/12/2016 before respondent No. 3 for demolition of illegal construction, and accordingly, respondent No. 3 had directed the Regional JDO to immediately stop the illegal construction which was going on, but the illegal construction was not stopped. In spite of the instructions given in the Jansunwai, respondents No. 1 and 2 did not stop the illegal construction, and accordingly, once again, another application dtd. 09/12/2016 was given by applicant to respondent No. 3 to stop the illegal construction, but the illegal construction was not stopped. As a result, it is submitted that respondents have violated the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act. Again, on 13/12/2016, an application was given to the Municipal Corporation for stopping the illegal construction, and accordingly, respondent No. 3 had directed the Ward JDO to personally visit the spot and stop the illegal construction. Once again, another application was given on 27/12/2016 to respondent No. 3 to stop the illegal construction, but no steps were taken to stop the illegal construction. When the applicant filed an application under the Right to Information Act with regard to the building permission given to respondents No. 1 and 2, then the said information was not given by respondent No. 3 and only in appeal, the appellate authority gave an information that no application was ever made by respondents No. 1 and 2 for grant of building permission and a case for demolition of illegal construction raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 is in progress. It was further alleged that on 02/12/2016, applicant had taken the photographs of illegal construction, which was being raised by respondents No. 1 and 2, from which it is clear that the illegal construction is being raised, but no action was taken by respondents No. 1 and 2. Thus, it was alleged that the Municipal Corporation is also assisting respondents No. 1 and 2 to raise the illegal construction. It was further alleged that on 04/07/2017 also, applicant had given an application for removal of illegal construction, but no action was taken. The illegal construction has been raised without maintaining the minimum distance from the main road as required under the guidelines. Whenever a request was made by applicant to stop the illegal construction, then a threat was extended by respondents No. 1 and 2 that they have good relationship with the senior officers, therefore, applicant may make any number of applications or complaints, but he cannot stop them from raising illegal construction. Accordingly, it was pleaded that in case if respondents No. 1 and 2 do not demolish the illegal construction, then respondent No. 3 should be directed to demolish the illegal construction at the expense of respondents No. 1 and 2. It was also pleaded that respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to immediately stop raising illegal construction, as well as for demolition of the illegal construction which has already been raised.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement and claimed that no illegal construction is being raised. The complaints have been filed on false grounds. Applicant wants to put undue pressure on respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing false complaints, and accordingly, respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed a civil suit against the applicant which is pending in the civil court. It was further pleaded that if the applicant and respondent No. 3, in connivance with each other, have prepared any file or document, still applicant would not be entitled to get the benefit of the same. The photographs, which have been relied upon by applicant, do not belong to the disputed place, but are of some other place which have been forgely shown to be the place of construction. All other adverse contentions were also denied. It was further claimed that applicant has filed the application with an intention to blackmail respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had purchased a double-storey building, and it is standing in its original condition. No construction work has been done. In fact, applicant was running a paan cart. As he was stopped from using the place and the building was being used by respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, applicant, with a dishonest intention and out of personal grudge, has started making false allegations against respondents No. 1 and 2. In fact, the intention of applicant is to blackmail and extract money from respondents No. 1 and 2.