ISLAMUDDIN AHMED Vs. BIJOY SINGH BAID (DR.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, i.e. Islamuddin Ahmed, Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, i.e. Dr. Bijoy Singh Baid, Mr. A.P. Bhattaharyya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2, i.e. Municipal Board, Dhubri, and Mr. C.K.S. Barua, learned State Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 4, viz., The State of Assam and The Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri.

(2.) Owing to the nature of dispute raised herein, this revision has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage as consented to by the learned Counsels of all sides.

(3.) The respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration, injunction for demolition of illegal construction raised by the petitioner herein and as per the statements made in the plaint, the allegation was that the petitioner was raising his construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner contested the suit and raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the suit for non- compliance of mandatory provisions of section 326 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "1956 Act"), which requires issuance of one month's notice to the concerned Municipal authorities before filing the suit. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, by filing this revision under 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the said order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dhubri (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court"), in Title Suit No. 459/2016.