MULAIMCHAND Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a writ of certiorari against the Municipal Committee, katni (respondent No. 1) to quash its resolution No. 2 dated 15-3-1952, refusing sanction to the petitioner to construct a residential house on a plot situated in morrisganj in the town of Katni.

(2.) IT is necessary to set out a few facts in order to understand the points raised for decision. The petitioner acquired the plot under a registered lease dated 26-31942 from Maharaj Kumar Shrilal Raghunath Singhju Deo of Deorajnagar. On 2610-1950 he filed an application accompanied with the plan for sanction to construct a residential building, On 8-11-1950 a number of residents of the locality presented their objections to sanction the proposed construction. The President of the Municipal Committee rejected the application by an order dated 23-12-1950 which was communicated to the petitioner by Ittalanama (Annexure III) on 8-11951. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the said order which was rejected by the Committee on 25-4-1951. The order of the Municipal Committee was, however, set aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur, by his order dated 20-6-1951 (Annexure VI) and the Municipal Committee was directed to reconsider the application if a modified plan of the house which would accommodate the interests of the residents of the locality were submitted.

(3.) THE Municipal Committee, after re-considering the matter, reiterated its earlier decision and refused to grant the sanction by its resolution No. 2, dated 15-3-1952 (Annexure VII ). The sanction was refused on the ground inter alia that the plot being vacant was a public street which had vested in the Committee and that the construction, if allowed, would obstruct the nistar of the residents of the locality. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 22-8-1952 (Annexure XI)affirmed the order passed by the Municipal Committee after inspecting the spot himself. The Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, affirming the view that the construction of the proposed building would adversely affect the interests of the residents of the locality. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition.