Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Kukreja vs Municipal Corporation Thr. on 30 March, 2017
WP-2039-2017
(OM PRAKASH KUKREJA Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR.)
30-03-2017
Shri Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the
petitioner has assailed the notices dated 23/03/2017 & 24/03/2017
issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby, the alleged illegal
constructed sheds in the land owned by the petitioner has been sought to be demolished within 24 hours.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already submitted reply on 24/03/2017 and has categorically stated that he has not carried out any construction over the land in question and the sheds were already constructed since 17/04/1969, the date on which property was purchased by the father of the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents/Corporation has levied property tax on the aforesaid sheds. Inspite of the same and without considering the reply of the petitioner the respondents again issued a notice dated 24/03/2017 affixed on the premises of the petitioner on 25/03/2017 and asked the petitioner to remove alleged illegal constructions within six hours, failing which, the respondents/Corporation are left with no option, but to remove the alleged constructions.
The grievances of the petitioner is that without following the principle of natural justice and without considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner along with annexures in support of his contention, the respondents cannot demolish the property which has been legally acquired.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the respondents can be directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner Annexure P/6 dated 24/03/2017 before taking action for demolition.
In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents No. 1 & 2 to consider the reply dated 24/03/2017 Annexure P/6 and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today.
Accordingly, the impugned action of the respondents is directed to be kept in abeyance till the time a fresh speaking order is passed by the competent authority after dealing with the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled for hearing by competent authority either in person or through duly authorized Advocate on his behalf. In case, the competent authority decided to pass any adverse order against the petitioner they shall not give effect to a fresh order for period of two weeks, thereafter.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Durgekar