Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Municipal Corp.Jaipur vs Lekhraj Soni on 31 October, 2014
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 9985 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16668 of 2008)
MUNICIPAL CORP.JAIPUR & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
LEKHRAJ SONI & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 17 th January, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B.C.S.A. No.594 of 2006 filed by the appellants herein whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by a Single Judge of that court as also the orders passed by the courts below concerning an interim injunction in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff.
In Civil Suit No.150 of 2002 filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the plaintiff prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant-Municipal Signature Not Verified Corporation of Jaipur from demolishing Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2014.11.10 Houses No.787 and 688 situated at Chokri Visheswarji, Chaura 18:50:58 IST Reason:
Rassta Gali Govind Ram, Dhau, Badari, Jaipur, or interfering 2 in any manner with the replacement of the roofs of the said houses. An interim injunction it appears was also prayed for by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in the said suit in which the trial court upon consideration passed an order restraining the defendant-appellant-Corporation from demolishing the western portion of Houses 787 and 688 belonging to the plaintiff or interfering in any manner with the laying of the roofs of the said houses. The trial court also permitted the plaintiff to construct the fourth and fifth floors of the said houses and to repair the remaining floors, part of which appear to have been demolished by the Corporation/Authorities. The trial court at the same time restrained the plaintiff-respondent no.1 herein from raising the height of the houses beyond 48 feet with liberty to the Corporation to demolish the same in case the plaintiff exceeds that height.
An appeal preferred against the said order by the Corporation was dismissed by the Additional District Judge NO.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his order dated 28th April, 2003. Undeterred by the dismissal, the Corporation brought the matter before the High Court in Writ Petition NO.4994 of 2005 which was disposed of with the modification that the plaintiff 3 shall not change the frontage or the nature of the property and shall not disturb the heritage look of the property which is situate in the old city of Jaipur. Civil special appeal filed against the said order passed by the Single Judge also having failed, the appellant rushed to this Court with the present appeal in which this Court by an order dated 8 th July, 2008 not only issued notice to the respondents but also directed the stay of the operation of the impugned order pending further orders from this Court.
When the matter came up for hearing before this Court again on 25th January, 2010, this Court noticed a submission made on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 that unauthorised constructions were rampant in the pink city of Jaipur and that the municipal authorities had turned a blind eye to such illegal constructions. This Court prima facie felt that such unauthorised constructions could not have been raised without the active connivance of the municipal officers concerned and directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, to file an affidavit along with a statement containing details of the illegal and unauthorised constructions going on in the various zones of the Jaipur 4 City.
By an another order dated 15th March, 2010 this Court after perusing the affidavit filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, and photographs produced by learned counsel for the Corporation came to the conclusion that large scale unauthoised constructions were being raised in all the areas of Jaipur city and reiterated that the illegal/unauthorised construction of such magnitude could not be made without the active and/or tacit connivance of the concerned officers. Chief Executive Officer-cum-Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, was accordingly directed to set out the details of illegal/unauthorised construction made in the last five years and those that were presently being raised within the Jaipur Municipal Corporation limits. Several orders have been passed by this Court on the subject thereafter from time to time but we need refer to some of those orders only to set out the parameters within which the present proceedings which were primarily concerned with the validity of the order granting an interim injunction have taken the dimensions of a public interest litigation.
By order dated 19th April, 2010 this Court once again felt 5 concerned about the magnitude of the illegal construction that were going on in the city of Jaipur and accordingly impleaded Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. as a party to this petition with a direction to the Nigam to file an affidavit giving the details of unauthorised electric connections within the walled city of Jaipur as also the details of such connections in the areas which fall outside the walled city. We may also refer to an order dated 6th December, 2010 by which the Jaipur Development Authority was impleaded as party respondent and the Commissioner of the Authority directed to file a status report about the illegal and unauthorised constructions that have come up in and around the city in the past.
By an order dated 9th May, 2011, this Court after hearing learned Advocate General of State of Rajasthan and the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority and also the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., directed that the nature of the problem arising out of illegal constructions and encroachments required a holistic approach to be adopted. By yet another order dated 30 th August, 2011 this Court on the suggestion made by the Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan appointed an empowered 6 committee comprising two former Judges of the High Court of Rajasthan for ensuring implementation of the final plan being prepared by the consultant(s) appointed by the State Government in an endeavour to make Jaipur as a world-class heritage city and for other ancillary purposes. The empowered committee comprised Mr. Justice V.S. Dave and Justice I.S. Israni, former judges of the High Court, and was constituted initially for a term of two years commencing 15th September, 2011. The committee was given the task of addressing the following concerning area falling within the walled city of Jaipur in addition to the implementation of the plan formulated by the experts: (i) Cleanliness of the city; (ii) Traffic Management; (iii) Provision of Public Utilities; and
(iv) Parking.
The empowered committee was also required to look into the question of removal of encroachments on public land (permanent or temporary) in the entire Jaipur city comprising areas under the limits of Jaipur Development Authority, the Municipal Corporation and the Rajasthan Housing Board. The empowered committee was permitted to entertain complaints/suggestions and even act suo motu and issue 7 directions for the departments to take necessary action and to report to the empowered committee. The Jaipur Development Authority was appointed as a nodal agency to provide all necessary assistance to the empowered committee including manpower for ensuring effective functioning of the empowered committee. Empowered committee was also authorised to take assistance of experts in different fields. The remunerations of the experts were however directed to be paid by the Jaipur Development Authority. The State Government was directed to decide the honorarium and other terms of appointment of the members of the empowered committee which were to be provided by the Jaipur Development Authority. The monitoring committee appointed by the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4783 of 2003 was to stand superseded by the empowered committee, appointed by this Court. What is important is that the State Government and Jaipur Development Authority as also Jaipur Municipal Corporation were directed not to regularise any encroachment in violation of the master plan, zonal plan and sanctioned building plan. A series of orders passed thereafter have taken note of the developments from time to time including nearly 10 reports 8 which were filed by the empowered committee before this Court. By an order dated 19th July, 2013, this Court extended the term of the empowered committee further for a period of two years commencing 15th September, 2013 subject on the terms and conditions initially prescribed by the State Government. This Court further directed the Jaipur Municipal Corporation to remove the dump near the water tank on Museum Road and stop all illegal slaughter houses/activities of slaughtering of animals within one kilometer of the water tank.
When the matter came up before us on 6th January, 2014, we requested Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, to assist us as amicus, in view of the long history of the litigation and several directions that were issued in the light of the reports submitted before us.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length today. There are two distinct dimensions of this litigation one concerning the correctness of the order passed by the High Court in relation to the ad interim injunction granted by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the other concerning the direction which this Court has issued from time to time in public interest. As regards 9 the question of validity of the direction issued by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court in writ petition and civil special appeal filed against the same, we are of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the controversy as also the fact that the ad interim order passed by the courts below has remained effective for a while though finally stayed by this Court on 8th July, 2008, a direction to the parties to maintain status quo as it exists today pending final disposal of the suit, in which the said interim order was passed, shall sufficiently meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the parties were unable to say with certainty whether the suit already stand disposed of by the trial court. We therefore assume that the said suit is still pending before the trial court. All that we would in that view direct is that the trial court shall make an endeavour to expeditiously dispose of the said suit, if not already disposed of, as far as possible within a period of one year from today. The trial court shall in that regard be free to fix the matter on day-to-day basis if necessary.
Coming to the second aspect of the matter, we are of the view that this Court has over the past nearly 8 years devoted 10 enough time on this subject, issued directions that have tried to sensitize the authorities concerned about their duties and also monitored the progress from time to time. Even so any such continued supervision and monitoring is bound to take a heavy toll on our valuable time. While we do not in the least suggest that the issues which were espoused in these proceedings do not have a public interest dimension or were taken up without a sufficient basis for the same, we feel that the kind of supervision and monitoring these issues would require may be possible more effectively at the level of the state High Court. We have no manner of doubt that given an opportunity the High Court would take up the issues with the sensitivity that they deserve. We would, therefore, request the High Court to register the matter as a public interest petition and pass appropriate directions considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case from time to time.
We may at this stage mention that Justice I.S. Israni, one of the members of the empowered committee appointed by this Court, has, by a communication dated 27 th October, 2014, expressed his regrets and inability to continue as a member of the committee. In that view, the question whether a 11 substitute appointment should be made arises before us for consideration. But having regard to the fact that the entire matter is now being remitted to the High Court, we do not consider it necessary to make a substitute appointment or even to continue the committee appointed by us any further. We will, therefore, vacate the order appointing the committee and relieve all persons connected therewith of their assignment. This order will not however be understood to be preventing the High Court from making any other arrangement if it considers it necessary to do so. Nor will it prevent the High Court from stipulating appropriate terms and conditions for any arrangement that it may make. That leave us with the question whether Jaipur Municipal Corporation has complied with the direction of shifting of the slaughter house from what is called Bisalpur Water Tank area in Moti Dundari, where it is presently located. The tank is, we are told, used to provide clean drinking water to the city of Jaipur. Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Jaipur Municipal Corporation has taken appropriate steps for getting the slaughter house shifted from its present location but there is nothing before us to accept 12 that submission. The High Court may, therefore, look into the matter, verify the facts and issue appropriate directions in this regard. All that we need to say is that the shifting of the slaughter houses from near the source of drinking water in the city of Jaipur, has to be attended to on a priority basis.
With the above observations and directions, we dispose of this appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs. we place on record our deep appreciation and gratitude for the able assistance provided to us by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, as an amicus.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR) .......................J (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) .......................J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI DATED 31st OCTOBER, 2014.
13
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.2 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16668/2008
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/01/2008 in DBCSA No. 594/2006,17/01/2008 in SBCWP No. 4994/2005 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) MUNICIPAL CORP.JAIPUR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS LEKHRAJ SONI & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing O.T. and intervention and permission to file addl. documents and interim relief and office report) Date : 31/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.Adv., (A.C.) For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya,Adv.
Mr. L.K. Paonam,Adv.
Mr. Niraj Bobby Paonam,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Jain,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Christi Jain,Adv.
Ms. Ankita Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari,Adv.
Mr. S. K. Sinha,Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.
Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv.
Mr. Puneet Parihar,Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal,Adv.
14
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, this appeal is disposed of:
“ ….We would, therefore, request the High Court to register the matter as a public interest petition and pass appropriate directions considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case from time to time.
We may at this stage mention that Justice I.S. Israni, one of the members of the empowered committee appointed by this Court, has, by a communication dated 27 th October, 2014, expressed his regrets and inability to continue as a member of the committee. In that view, the question whether a substitute appointment should be made arises before us for consideration. But having regard to the fact that the entire matter is now being remitted to the High Court, we do not consider it necessary to make a substitute appointment or even to continue the committee appointed by us any further. We will, therefore, vacate the order appointing the committee and relieve all persons connected therewith of their assignment. This order will not however be understood to be preventing the High Court from making any other arrangement if it considers it necessary to do so. Nor will it prevent the High Court from stipulating appropriate terms and conditions for any arrangement that it may make. That leave us with the question whether Jaipur Municipal Corporation has complied with the direction of shifting of the slaughter house from what is called Bisalpur Water Tank area in Moti Dundari, where it is presently located. The tank is, we are told, used to provide clean drinking water to the city of Jaipur. Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that Jaipur Municipal Corporation has taken appropriate steps for getting the slaughter house shifted from its present location but there is nothing before us to accept that submission. The High Court may, therefore, look into the matter, verify the facts and issue appropriate directions in this regard. All that we need to say is that the shifting of the slaughter houses from near the source of drinking water in the city of Jaipur, has to be attended to on a priority basis.
With the above observations and directions, we dispose of this appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs. we place on record our deep appreciation and gratitude for the able assistance provided to us by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel, as an amicus.” (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)