Vinod Kumar Jain vs State Of MP And Others

Since we are not deciding the issue on merits, no notice is required to be issued to the respondents.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 25.7.2020 appended as Annexure-P/4 with this petition issued by the Respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the structures/shops from Khasra No.155/1/ka/1 on the ground that the said land was recorded as Government land and the shops constructed thereon was in violation of Section 223 (1) of Municipality Act 1961.

The petitioner has also sought for the following reliefs:-

"7.1 That, it is therefore prayed that Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 25.7.2020 (Annexure P/11) and respondent No.4 may be directed to not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of impugned notice dated 25.07.2020, in the interest of justice.

7.2 That, it is therefore prayed that Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the application of petitioner (Annexure P/12) taking into consideration the judgment, and decree dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure P/4) and Khatoni and Khasra (Annexure P/1 & 2), in the interest of justice.

7.3 Any other relief deems fit may also be granted including cost of litigation."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice has been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner is registered owner of the disputed property. The said property is a private land under the ownership of the petitioner and not a Government land. It was contended that after receiving the impugned notice, the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation before the Respondent No.4 requesting him not to take any action against the petitioner, but no decision has been taken on the said representation.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.4 to decide the representation made by the petitioner by a speaking order within next one month in accordance with law, by following the principles of natural justice.

In the meanwhile, till the representation is decided no demolition shall be effected. It is clarified that in case, respondents have any objection against the present order, it shall be open for them to move an application to this Court for recall of this order.

Needless to say, grant of interim relief till the decision of the representation shall not be construed to mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.