Madhya Pradesh High Court
Municipal Council Umaria vs Brahma Kumari Laxmi Behan Adhyatmik ... on 11 May, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 MADHYA PRADESH 133, (2017) 3 MPLJ 259 (2017) 4 CIVLJ 561, (2017) 4 CIVLJ 561
WP No. 7954/2016
1
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar, J
W.P. No. 7954/2016
Municipal Council, Umaria
Vs.
Brahma Kumari Laxmi Behan Adhyatmik Geeta Gyan Ganga Raj Yog
Seva Kendra, Shanti Marg, Umaria (M.P.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashok Chourasia, learned counsel for the respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on the 11th day of May, 2017)
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard on I.A.No.3493/2017, which is an application filed by the respondent for recalling the order dated 22.02.2017 and also heard finally.
2. The petitioner before this Court is the Municipal Council, Umaria, who has challenged the order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Collector, Umaria in respect of an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 4 of M.P. Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974.
3. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims itself to be owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 312 admeasuring 0.018 hectares situated at Shanti Marg of Ward No.4 of Umaria Town. The aforesaid property was gifted to the petitioner by its erstwhile owner Shri Daulatram Bhandari S/o Late Shri Budhmal Bhandari R/o Jaipur vide registered gift deed dated 17.10.1984. The petitioner on the basis of the resolution dated 12.08.2013 have started eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the competent authority, who vide order dated 22.07.2014 passed the order of eviction against the respondent. Against the aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by the respondent which was allowed by the learned Collector vide its order dated 15.09.2015 on the ground that the registered gift deed dated 17.10.1984 on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed its title is executed under suspicious WP No. 7954/2016 2 circumstances and as such the land cannot be termed as Public Premises and it is further observed that in view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner ought to have filed a civil suit for eviction of the respondent. A liberty was also granted by the Collector to the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings in the Civil Court.
4. It is pertinent to mention that in this petition, this Court, vide its order dated 22.02.2017 has decided I.A.No.5266/16 which is an application for interim relief filed by the petitioner in the following manner :-
" The respondent has not filed any reply to the said application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is using the said property without paying any occupation charges. He submits that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as occupation charges.
As the respondent has not filed any reply to the said application, the prayer for interim relief is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from 1st February, 2017 towards occupation charges to the petitioner."
5. It is submitted by Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the said order has not been complied with by the respondent, in view of the non-compliance of the same, the respondent should not be given any audience so far as it relates to the merits of the case as the order passed by this Court on 22.02.2017 has not been complied with. The contention of the petitioner is that the matter was listed for consideration of I.A. No. 5266/2016 which is an application for interim relief and the same is reflected continuously in the cause-list also right from 03.05.2016 to 22.02.2017. During this period, on as many as nine occasions when the petition was listed before this Court, respondent did not bother to ask for copy of the aforesaid I.A., although copy of the I.A. was furnished to the respondent along with copy of the petition itself, thus it cannot be said that the respondent had no knowledge of the application and its contents and the application for recalling of the order is nothing but an after-thought with a view of avoid the payments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondent has also filed a document Annexure R/4 along with its application for recalling of the order dated 22.02.2017 wherein, in a notice issued on their behalf by advocate, the status of the petitioner is shown as "donee" of the disputed property, hence the respondent are bound by the WP No. 7954/2016 3 aforesaid admission. Since the respondent have no legal right to remain in the premises without paying any rent for the same, it must be made liable to pay occupation charges.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order passed by the Collector is in accordance with law and no illegality has been committed by the Collector in passing the aforesaid order. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court as observed by the Collector that the property in dispute does not fall within the category of Public Premises as provided under the provisions of the Act of 1974.
8. So far as the objection in respect of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 22.02.2017 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the aforesaid order has been obtained by the petitioner by suppressing material facts as the petitioner never supplied copy of I.A.No. 5266/16 and in the absence of such application, respondent could not file reply of the same and the order has been passed only on account of non-filing of the reply to the aforesaid application and since the respondent was prevented from filing of the reply on bonafide reason, the order dated 22.02.2017 is liable to be recalled and in this behalf the respondent has also filed I.A.No. 3493/2017. It is further submitted that the respondent is a social group and is running Brahma Kumari Laxmi Behan Adhyatmik Geeta Gyan Ganga Raj Yog Seva Kendra from the disputed premises, hence the occupation charges of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be paid by them.
9. After hearing the counsels at length and after perusing the record, this court is of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
10. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the Collector has held that the registered gift deed is a suspicious document and cannot be relied upon and also that since the title of the petitioner is tainted, the provisions of the Act of 1974 cannot be applied and the premises cannot be said to be a public premises.
11. I find force in the submissions made by the petitioner that the Collector had no jurisdiction to hold that the gift deed which was registered and duly executed before the competent authority, is a suspicious WP No. 7954/2016 4 document. It is a trite law that once a document is registered, the same cannot be cancelled or the effect of the same cannot be undone, except by fling of a civil suit challenging the same. In the present case, the petitioner has come out with a case that the gift deed was registered in its name, hence if any other person had any objection in respect of the veracity or validity of the gift deed, it was for the said person to approach the Civil Court and not for the petitioner as has been wrongly directed by the Collector.
Section 2(e) of the Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 defines Public Premises as under:-
"2(e) "public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of, the State government, and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of -
(i) any company as defines in section 3, of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and
(ii) any Corporation not being a company as defined in section of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956) established by or under a Central or State Act and owned or controlled by the State Government or a local authority."
(emphasis supplied) Hence the aforesaid property which was gifted to the Municipal Council, Umaria (which is a local authority constituted under the State Act) through a registered gift deed has naturally become a public property owing to the status of the petitioner itself, therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would not be applicable in the present case. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the Collector, Umaria, is hereby quashed.
So far as the non-compliance of the order is concerned, the contention made by the counsel for the petitioner that due to non- compliance of the interim order, the respondent should not be given any opportunity of hearing, cannot be accepted for the reason that no such interim order can be passed which would preclude the respondents to participate in further proceedings.
WP No. 7954/2016 5It is an admitted fact that the respondent has not complied with the order passed by this Court and has filed an application I.A.No. 3493/2017 for recalling of the same. I find substance in the submission of shri Lalwani that the respondent cannot be said to have no knowledge of the I.A.No. . 5266/2016. The petitioner had indeed filed the application for interim relief as I.A.No.5266/2016 along with the petition, and it was listed in cause list all along the time until it was disposed of on 22.02.2017. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the respondent had no knowledge of the I.A.No. 5266/2016. In the circumstances, the I.A.No. 3493/2017 filed by the respondent is hereby dismissed. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a social organization and there are no personal gains involved, the order is modified and the amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. as ordered by this court on 22.02.2017 is reduced to Rs.2500/- per month subject to their undertaking to the petitioner that the said premises would be vacated by them within a period of 3 months from today.
C.C. As per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) JUDGE Vikram