Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Chawla vs Prahlad Lalwani on 14 September, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 14 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 1593 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. ANAND CHAWLA S/O LATE SHRI GURMUKHDAS
CHAWLA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE R/O L.I.G. 26, 1ST FLOOR, GOVIND
BHAWAN COLONY, IN FRONT OF SAI MANDIR
CHOURAHA, SOUTH CIVIL LINE, JABALPUR (M.P)
AT PRESENT NEAR ATITHI HOTEL, MANDI ROAD,
STATIONGANJ, NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
2. MOTI CHAWLA S/O LATE SHRI GURMUKHDAS
CHAWLA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SANCHALAK/ PROPRIETOR HIRA MOTI CLOTH
EMPORIYAM, H.N 236 OLD 1001690905 NEW
BAJARANG WARD NO. 17 SINGHPUR CHOWRAHA
MAIN ROAD KANDELI NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK LALWANI- ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ANAND CHAWLA-
PETITIONER)
AND
1. PRAHALAD LALWANI S/O LATE SHRI
MANGHANDAS LALWANI, AGED ABOUT 68
YEARS, OCCUPATION: READYMADE CLOTH SHOP
KEEPER, R/O INFRONT OF RIPTA, SINGHPUR
CHOURAHA SE CHHINDWARA ROAD, KENDELI,
NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
2. SUNIL LALWANI S/O SHRI PRAHALAD LALWANI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
READYMADE CLOTH SHOPKEEPER, R/O INFRONT
OF RIPTA, SINGHPUR CHOURAHA SE
CHHINDWARA ROAD, KENDELI, NARSINGHPUR
(M.P) PRESENT TEHSILDAR KEVLARI TEHSIL
OFFICE KOVALARI DISTRICT SEONI (M.P)
3. SMT. LAXMI LALWANI W/O SHRI SUNIL
LALWANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O INFRONT OF RIPTA, SINGHPUR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 9/15/2023
9:51:19 AM
2
CHOURAHA SE CHHINDWARA ROAD, KENDELI,
NARSINGHPUR (MP) PRESENT TEHSILDAR
KEVLARI TEHSIL OFFICE KOVALARI DISTRICT
SEONI (M.P)
4. HAREESH LALWANI S/O SHRI PRAHALAD
LALWANI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT. SERVICE R/O INFRONT OF RIPTA,
SINGHPUR CHOURAHA SE CHHINDWARA ROAD,
KENDELI, NARSINGHPUR (M.P) PRESENT
TEHSILDAR KEVLARI TEHSIL OFFICE KOVALARI
DISTRICT SEONI (M.P)
5. NIKKI ENTERPRISES, DIRECTOR MANISH
TEKACHANDANI S/O SHRI SADHURAM
TEKACHANDANI AGE 35 R/O H.N. 237 OLD 240
NEW SINGPUR CHOURAHA BAJARANG WARD
MAIN ROAD KADELI NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
6. KRISHNA ELECTRICALS, DIRECTOR GOVIND
CHAWLA S/O LATE SHRI HOLARAM CHAWLA AGE
35 YEARS, R/O H.N. 237 OLD 240 NEW SINGPUR
CHOURAHA BAJARANG WARD MAIN ROAD
KADELI NARSINGHPUR DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(M.P)
7. CHIEF NAGAR PALIKA OFFICER, NAGAR PALIKA
PARISHAD, NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD OFFICE
NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NAVNEET DUBEY -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4,
SHRI ABHIMANYU SINGH -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7, NONE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 AND 6)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, this petition is finally heard. This petition is under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P-8), whereby the court below in an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of the C.P.C granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner directing the respondent/defendant to continue with Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 9/15/2023 9:51:19 AM 3 demolishing their portion occupied by them subject to follow the precaution not to cause any damage to the portion of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is also directed that if during the course of demolition any damage is caused to the plaintiff/petitioner's portion, the defendant/respondent will get the said portion repaired.
Counsel for the petitioner challenged the said order of the court below mainly on the ground that instead of granting complete injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, restraining the defendant/respondent from demolition, court has passed an order allowing the defendant/respondent to continue with the demolition and it is not proper on the part of the court.
Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court failed to examine the aspect that under the existing circumstances, if any demolition is required to be done by the defendant/respondent then they have to follow certain norms provided under the Rules known as Madhya Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas Rules, 2012 (in short "Rules of 2012"). He further submitted that Rules of 2012 very categorically provides the requirement of demolition under which it is provided as to in what manner demolition can be done and as to what requirements are to be fulfilled by the person getting his portion demolished. He submits that those procedure has not been followed and necessary sanction as per the requirement under the Rules of 2012 has not been obtained by defendant/respondent and therefore, they should be restrained from making any demolition in their portion because it is every likelihood that if they are allowed to continue with their demolition that may cause damage to the portion of the plaintiff/petitioner.
Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 4 submits that they have obtained necessary permission from the competent authority Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 9/15/2023 9:51:19 AM 4 under the provisions of Rules of 2012 and demolition is being done in accordance thereto and after following due procedure of law.
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and the fact whether the necessary permission has been obtained by the defendants/respondents from respondent no.7 or not, at this stage nothing can be ascertained because those documents/permissions are not available before this Court.
However, this petition is disposed of modifying the order which is impugned in this petition to the extent that if defendant/respondent no.1 to 4 are willing to demolish their portion, then they will have to seek proper sanction from the respondent no.7 and the respondent no.7 is also directed to examine whether the respondent no.1 to 4 are following the due procedure as prescribed under provisions of Rules of 2012 or not.
It is further directed that demolition should be made in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 2012 and if application is made by the defendant/respondents as per Rule 14 of Rules of 2012, the respondent no.7 will consider the same and grant the permission if demolition is made as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 89 of Rules of 2012.
It is further directed that even after following due procedure of law any damage is caused to the plaintiff/petitioner, it would be obligatory for the defendant/respondent to get the same repaired in the same manner as it exists before demolition. That repair should be done immediately after any such damage is done in the said portion. The respondent no.7 is also duty bound to see whether demolition is being made as per procedure prescribed under Rules of 2012 or not.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 9/15/2023 9:51:19 AM 5With the aforesaid observations, the order impugned is modified to the above extent.
Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE tarun Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 9/15/2023 9:51:19 AM