--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 958 / 2011 ABBAS ALI S/O HAJI SAIFUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MP & ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 10/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Dewas in the matter of grant of building permission to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he is owner of Plot No. 103 Mukti Marg, Dewas and has submitted an application for grant of building permission. Petitioner's grievance is that till date the respondent Corporation has not granted building permission to the petitioner and therefore an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued directing the respondents to grant building permission to the petitioner in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained --- 2 --- under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the Corporation is that one contempt petition is pending in respect of the same property in question and therefore they have not granted building permission to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court towards an order dt. 3/8/2007 passed in WP NO. 4233 / 2007 wherein this court has directed the Collector to conduct an enquiry in respect of the building in question. He has further informed that in fact a tenant was residing in the property in question and the property was demolished by the Corporation and this Court in a writ petition preferred by the tenant has directed the Collector to conduct an enquiry. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a contempt petition is also pending for non compliance of the order dt. 3/8/2007. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting him --- 3 --- building permission keeping in view the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It is an admitted fact that a writ petition was filed by the tenant in respect of demolition of the house situated over the property in question and this Court has directed the Collector, vide order dt. 3/8/2007, to conduct an enquiry. This court, while deciding the aforesaid matter, has observed as under : 03/08/2007 Shri Piyush Mathur, Advocate with Shri Anant Khare/petitioner in person. Since the petitioner had appeared in person and could not project his case properly, therefore Shri Piyush Mathur, Advocate who was present in Court had been requested in the to assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Mathur had very graciously accepted the request of the Court. The grace shown by Shri Mathur is highly appreciated. After studying the file for some time Shri Mathur, learned counsel has assisted the Court on the basis of the record made available to him by the petitioner. It appears from the record that the petitioner was a tenant in a residential house. He was apprehending forceable dispossession at the hands of the present respondents no.4 and 5, Jainuddin and Hussaini, and as such had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated March 31, 2001. Respondents no.4 and 5 filed a first appeal being F.A.No.6-A/2001 before the appellate Court. The said first appeal was disposed of by the appellate Court vide order dated November 28, 2001 holding that all the proper parties had not been impleaded, and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court had remanded the case back to the trial Court. The present petitioner appears to have filed an appeal being M.A.No.1563/2001 before this Court. The aforesaid appeal was allowed --- 4 --- by this Court vide order dated July 26, 2005. The order of the First Appellate Court was set aside. As a natural consequence of the setting aside of the order of Appellate Court the decree of the trial court stood restored. The grievance made by the petitioner is that respondents no4 and 5 in connivance of certain antisocial elements and influential persons and also in connivance of the local administration, had demolished the house of the petitioner, when he was away to Pune on July 27, 2007 and had even taken illegal possession of his house hold goods. It is in these circumstances, and with the aforesaid claim, that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. It may be relevant to note here that all the aforesaid facts, as noticed in the earlier para, have been extracted from the claim made by the present petitioner only. They are taken at their face value. The allegations levelled by the petitioner are very serious. They require further scrutiny and appropriate action. A helpless person and a senior citizen, like the petitioner, cannot be left to be treated like garbage by the sharks in the society. If, as claimed by the petitioner, the respondents no.4 and 5 and some other persons have connived to take illegal possession of his house to demolish the same and thrown his house hold goods and even taken possession thereof, then it a very serious criminal offence appears to have been committed by the aforesaid persons. However, the matter requires further consideration. Consequently, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition and direct the Collector, Dewas/Respondent no.2 that the present petition filed by the petitioner, shall be treated as a representation by him and thereafter, notice therein, shall be issued to respondents no.4 and 5 forthwith and after holding a preliminary enquiry, if any further notice is required to be issued to any other persons, who appeared to have connived with respondents no.4 and 5 in demolishing the house of the petitioner, issue such a notice. Thereafter, the matter shall be further enquired into by the Collector. On such enquiry and on further conclusions, if drawn, the Collector, Dewas shall ensure that criminal proceedings are initiated by registration of an --- 5 --- appropriate FIR against the guilty persons. The Collector shall also ensure that till further orders passed by him, no construction shall be permitted to be raised by respondents no.4 and 5 or any other persons on the site, where the house of the petitioner was located. Shri Anand Pathak, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3, on the basis of advance copy, is also requested to forward a copy of the petition to the Collector, Dewas for further appropriate action in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. Collector, Dewas is directed to send an action taken report in the matter to this Court within three months. C.C.forthwith. (VINEY MITTAL) JUDGE It is pertinent to note that the Collector, Dewas has directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Dewas to conduct an enquiry in the matter and the Sub Divisional Officer, Dewas has conducted an enquiry in the matter and has submitted a detailed and exhaustive report on 27/11/2007. However, the fact remains that no final order has been passed by the Collector, as directed by this Court. This Court vide order dt. 3/8/07 has observed that until and unless a final order is passed by the Collector, no construction shall be permitted to be raised in respect of the building in question and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that unless and until the Collector passes an order, as directed by this --- 6 --- Court, the question of granting permission for construction does not arise. Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : (a) The Collector, Dewas shall pass final order, as directed by this Court, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; and (b) The Municipal Corporation, Dewas, shall pass necessary orders in respect of grant of building permission within a period of 60 days thereafter, keeping in view the provisions as contained under the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 as well as keeping in view the statutory provisions of law. With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR