BALARAM Vs. RAVISHANKAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In this review petition, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated 19.12016 passed in W.P. No. 8759/2016 whereby the writ petition was disposed of at admission stage itself without issuing notice to the other side i.e. present review petitioner with direction that the respondent No. 2/petitioner shall prefer the application for compounding within two days. In case, such application is preferred before the competent authority i.e. Municipal Corporation, the same shall be decided by speaking and reasoned order within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

(3.) The grievance of the review petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 has raised illegal construction to the extent that the road has been narrowed down and petitioner and other persons are facing difficulty in regular movement. Since the respondent No. 2 did not remove the illegal construction, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 307(5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. The said application was decided on 28.10.2015, whereby, respondent No. 2 was ordered to remove the illegal construction raised by the respondent No.1. The said order was challenged before this High Court by filing a Civil Revision No. 104/2015 which was dismissed on 02.09.2016. The Execution Court has dismissed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 for entering into the compromise on 18.11.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No. 1 had filed a writ petition No.8411/2016 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 06.12.2016. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 has filed another writ petition No. 8759/2016, the petition was listed for hearing on 19.12.2016 and the petition was disposed of at admission stage without hearing the present review petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that once the prayer was declined by this Court while dismissing the W.P. No.8411/2016 vide order dated 06.12.2016, the same prayer cannot have been allowed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid ex-parte order the petitioner prays for recalling the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in W.P. No.8759/2016.