Anand Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Rohit Arya, J

Petitioner, an Advocate by profession, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the impugned notice dated 29/7/2022 issued by Building Inspector, Area No. 13, Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior. Under the said notice, petitioner has been called upon to submit title documents of the area of land in question as a complaint had been received that after encroachment in the area, a factory is being run illegally.

On special mention, under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this writ petition is taken up for consideration by this Court today at 10.30 AM.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner passed on Board a notice issued to the petitioner under section 307(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") calling upon him to remove the construction within 24 hours, failing which the same shall be removed by the Corporation. Shri Dhengula submits that the period of time provided is too short either to reply to the impugned notice or to the one served upon him yesterday under S.307(2) of the Act. Even otherwise, petitioner is in settled possession of the land in question for several decades since the time of his forefathers. For this, he referred to the land records annexed with the writ petition. Besides, he submitted that the area in question is not being used for commercial purposes, instead, only an Advocate's Office is being run by the petitioner. He also referred to installation of electric meter at the site for which petitioner is regularly paying the electricity charges. Hence, he seeks injunction against the said action.

On advance notice, Shri Khot along with City Planner Shri Pavan Singhal and his associates is present. On instructions he submitted that the aforesaid notice has been issued as neither the petitioner has title of the land nor building permission of the Corporation to run either Office of an Advocate or Factory/glass polishing work. He has also passed on Board photographs in that behalf.

On directions of this Court, both the parties have visited the site and the area, except the Advocate's Office and access to the Office, has been sealed by removing the part of main gate.

The matter was again called out at 2 PM.

The aforesaid factual matrix indeed gives rise to disputed questions of facts relating to ownership, permission, right to be in possession, usage etc. This Court may not adjudicate upon such questions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

At this stage, Shri Dhengula seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of his rights.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition i s dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law.

The exercise carried out by the Corporation under the directions of this Court, shall not influence the proceedings before the competent forum and the same shall be subject to decision of the competent forum on prayer for injunction or on merits as the case may be.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.