Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 47 of 2014 1 - Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through- Its Commissioner, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant 1 - Superintendent, Post Office Bilaspur, Division- Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Ramakant Mishra with Miss Jyoti Singh, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 20/02/2025 : 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree ;dated 26.11.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.79-A/2013 by the 3 rd Additional Judge to the 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the suit preferred by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed in their favour and the order dated 3.3.2010 canceling KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.02.21 12:58:52 +0530 2 the allotment of the land ad measuring 150x200 i.e. 30,000 square feet for construction of postal colony was declared as void and permanent injunction was also granted subject to the condition that the allottee shall pay premium regularly @ Rs.7,500/- per annum. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was allotted permanent lease on 20.1.1992 by the Bilaspur Development Authority, later on merged into Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, under the Scheme No.2 “RajKishore Nagar Second Phase” in respect of the land ad measuring 150x200 totalling 30000 square feet for the purposes of construction of postal colony. Physical possession was handed over on 24 th August, 1993 and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was also deposited by the plaintiff on 14th March, 1991. According to the terms of the lease, annual premium @ Rs.7,500 was to be paid. The plaintiff has duly paid the annual premium for the period 1992-93 to 2007-08. The appellant/defendant has also granted permission for construction of boundary wall vide its communication dated 26th May, 2009. Thereafter vide letter dated 3rd March, 2010 (Ex.-P/4) on account of objection raised by Shri BD Pradhan, (retired Additional Collector) to the effect that the said land was reserved for Park and assigning reason that the lay out has also not been approved by the Town and Country Planning Department, the subject allotment was cancelled. A legal notice has been sent in terms of Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act, 1956’) (Ex.-P/5) on 3 10.6.2010 and thereafter the suit was filed on 13 th December, 2010. 3. In the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, receipt of notice under Section 401 of the Act, 1956 was denied. However, the other averments made in the plaint were not disputed. 4. On the basis of pleading made by the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as 4 issues. The plaintiff has examined one PL Patel (PW-1), who was the Superintendent, Main Post Office, Bilaspur and exhibited 5 documents viz Ex.-P/1 to P/5. Ex.- P/1 is the permanent lease issued for the period 20.1.1992 to 31.1.2021. Ex.-P/2 is the possession letter dated 24th August, 1993. Ex.-P/3 is the deposit of lease rent vide receipt dated 17 th March, 2008. Ex.-P/4 is the cancellation of allotment vide communication dated 3rd March, 2010. Ex.-P/5 is the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the appellant/defendant under Section 401 of the Act, 1956. 5. The appellant/defendant has examined the Estate Officer namely, Avinash Bapte (DW-1). 6. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been successful in proving its case that the appellant/defendant, in an arbitrary manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without following due process of law, has cancelled the allotment and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the subject 4 land was allotted in anticipation of approval. As the subject land was shown as the land reserved for park and, therefore, for such reason and in public interest, the lease was cancelled which was duly communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also averred that the trial Court has not framed any issue concerning issuance of legal notice under Section 401 of the Act, 1956. He would submit that unless statutory & mandatory notice under Section 401 of the Act, 1956 is served on the appellant, the suit itself against the Municipal Corporation is bad in law. Reliance is placed in the matter of M/s Mangilal Pagariya Builders & Contractors Vs. Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur1. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the legal notice has already been served on the appellant vide Ex.-P/5, which was duly proved by (PW-1) PL Patel and, therefore, the impugned judgment is well merited which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken a ground that no issue has been framed with regard to Section 401 of the Act, 1956. However, in the plaint itself, an averment has been made that legal notice has been served on the appellant and during recording of evidence, the plaintiff has proved the said fact by producing the document (Ex.-P/5) which shows that the legal 1 SA No.10/2009, decided by this Court on 2.5.2013. 5 notice was sent on 10.6.2010 to the appellant/defendant, which was duly proved by PL Patel (PW-1). In cross-examination, the said fact has not been rebutted. In the circumstances, the ground taken by the appellant that no legal notice has been served has no foundation and the same deserves to be rejected inasmuch as the plaintiff has duly proved that the legal notice was served, and the seal and signatures of the concerned officer of the Municipal Corporation are also available acknowledging the said fact. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the allotment was made way back in the year 1992 and the appellant/defendant has also accepted the lease rent as also the annual premium from time to time, and permission has also been accorded for construction of boundary wall. However, without affording any opportunity of hearing and in an arbitrary manner, the appellant/defendant has issued a cancellation order of allotment vide communication dated 3rd March, 2010 (Ex.-P/4). It is mentioned in the communication (Ex.-P/4) that the subject land was reserved for Park, but no document has been filed and proved during trial. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the trial Court in favour of the respondent/plaintiff are just and proper and this Court does not find any reason to take a different view of the matter. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the trial Court are affirmed. 13. The Appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 14. However, it is made clear that the appellant/defendant shall bear the cost of the suit as well as this Appeal. 15. A decree be drawn accordingly. Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Barve