BHAGWANDAS AND OTHERS Vs. NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, RATLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the notice of demand dated 8.4.2016 issued under section 174 of the M.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (referred hereinafter as 'the Act'), this petition has been preferred.

(2.) The background of the action taken against the petitioners is relevant whereunder the Writ Petition No. 1778/2015 was filed and was decided as per order dated 13.5.2015. This court found that the construction which is being carried out by the petitioners is as per the sanctioned map of the Corporation on a land purchased by them. Resultantly, the Court quashed the order dated 25.9.2013 (Annx.P/12) and the order dated 16.1.2015 (Annx.P/15) in the said writ petition. The court further directed that the construction activity be carried out by the petitioners in consonance with the building permission granted in theirfavour. Thereafter a notice(Annx.P/4) dated 18.3.2016 was issued contending that as per the notice dated 3.8.2015 some construction of the building on the MOS land has been raised. The description of illegal construction has not been mentioned in the said notice. It was replied denying all facts stating that no construction on MOS land is raised. Thereafter the notice of demand under section 174 has been issued which is assailed in this petition interalia contending that prior to issuing the demand, procedure as described in section 173 of the Act has not been followed, therefore the notice is bad in law, however it may be ordered to be quashed.

(3.) Respondent-Corporation has filed their reply interalia contending that notice has rightly been issued to the petitioner on account of raising the illegal construction on the MOS land which was demolished by use of JCB and other equipments, therefore the recovery to expenses incurred by Corporation as per the provisions of the Act has rightly been ordered. In alternative, it is urged that the said recovery does not come within the purview of section 173 and 174 of the Act, therefore the argument advanced by the petitioners is of no avail to them, therefore the petition may be dismissed.