w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kantichand Sharma v/s Municipal Corporation, Jaipur & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2008PTC035620

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2017PTC220657

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA AND SHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC276949

Company & Directors' Information:- SHARMA & CO. PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28991WB1949PTC018064

    Civil Writ Petition No. 5623 of 1996

    Decided On, 28 May 1997

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

    For the Appellant: G.L. Pareek, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.C. Jain, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. As questions of law falling for consideration in both these petitions are identical, they were heard analogously and are proposed to be disposed of by a common order.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the out set. A writ petition was filed by Kanti Chand Sharma (for short KC) against the Municipal Corporation Jaipur (for short MC) and others on November 18, 1996 with the averments that a plot owned and possessed by him is situated at Ambabadi Jaipur. He has been residing and carrying on business over the said plot after making construction for more than 34 years. The land in question has been surrounded by barbed wire fencing and water and electricity connections were installed over it. The open space of the said land has been covered by long and big trees. The MC issued licence in the name of KC for carrying his business. Till November 2, 1996 the said constructions were in existence but thereafter the MC smashed it and the belongings of KC were thrown in Amanishah Natas and thereby KC was put to a loss of about 6 lacs. Certified copies of judgment and decree dated October 25, 1996 have also been annexed with the writ petition showing that a compromise decree was passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4 Jaipur City, in the LOK ADALAT whereby the MC was restrained from demolishing the constructions on the suit land and From making interference in the peaceful enjoyment and use of the suit land without adopting the due course of law and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to KC. It was also being averred in the writ petition that KC after he became terrified from the threatening of Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, the Mayor of M. C., wrote an application for allotment of a portion of the land of an area of 100 sq. yards and wrote whatever Shri Mohan Lal Gupta desired to write. The MC after smashing the constructions rendered KC as a homeless orphan without adopting the due course of law, which according to Supreme Court was filing of a suit for declaration and eviction by the persons or authorities who claim the ownership and title over the said land. Summary proceedings u/s 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (for short Act 1959) ought not have been adopted by the MC. It has therefore, been prayed that MC be directed not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question and if it claims any title in respect of the said land it be directed to file a civil suit for establishing the same.

3. On January 20, 1997, KC initiated execution proceedings in respect of decree dated October 25, 1996, in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4 Jaipur City against MC and others. Along with the execution petition an application under Order 39 Rule I read with Section 151 CPC was also filed. The learned executing Court treated the said application u/s 151 CPC and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to land in question during the pendency of the execution petition, vide order dated Feb. 27, 1997. Against this order that the action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the MC.

4.The MC submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that KC was guilty of suppressing the material facts. After affording opportunity of showing cause he was dispossessed from the land in question on November 2, 1996 and thereafter on Jan. 27, 1997 the said land was put to auction. KC having intentionally concealed this fact that he was unsuccessful in seeking interim order against the Jaipur Development Authority, is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition.

5. Mr. G. L. Pareek, learned counsel with all the vehemence at his command canvassed that KC has been in continuous possession over the land in question for a period of more than 35 years and he has a bona fide claim about his right to remain in occupation over the said land. This bona fide claim raises questions involving applicability and interpretation of various laws and documents as well as investigation into deputed questions of fact involving recording of evidence. Such matters could not be satisfactorily adjudicated in summary proceedings u/s 203 of the Act 1959 and can be more properly considered in regular proceedings in the appropriate forum. A reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Padmavati Devi 1995 (1) Raj LJ 117 , Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Raja Fateh Singh v. Stale of Raj 1986 RLR 966 ; State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others Vs. Haji Wali Mohammed and Others, State of Haryana Vs. Ram Kishan and Others, : Hari Singh and Others Vs. The Military Estate Officer and Another, Railway Board, Government of India Vs. Observer Publication (P) Ltd., Ameerunnissa Begum and Others Vs. Mahboob Begum and Others, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others,

6. Mr. Prakash Chand Jain, learned counsel for the MC, on the other hand vigorously contended that writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. There are material contradictions in the writ petition. KC was dispossessed with his consent and he himself admits in the writ petition having executed such document. As KC availed alternative remedy no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Gopi Lal Teli Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, Union of India Vs. Smt. Darshna Devi, , M/s. Anamallai Club Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, Banshi Ram v. DDA 1995 (1) CCC 571 (sic) Mahadev v. Poona M. C. 1995 (1) SCC 352 (sic); Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs. K.S. Naravana Iyer,

BROAD PRINCIPLES

7. The principles deducible from the cases cited at the bar may be summarised as under :--

(i) If bona fide claim, raises questions involving applicability and interpretation of various laws and documents as well as disputed questions of fact involving recording of evidence such claim can be more properly considered in regular proceedings in the appropriate forum and not in summary proceedings.

(ii) Where Government is a lessor it cannot enforce the right of re-entry upon for feature under the lease deed by adopting a summary procedure Lessee not being an "unauthorised occupant" of a public premises recourse to Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act cannot be taken for summary eviction of lessee. Where such a breach is found lessor must adopt due process of law by filing civil suit to enforce its right of reentry.

(iii) The ordinary rule which regulates all procedure, is that persons who are likely to be affected by the proposed action must be afforded an opportunity of being heard as to why that action should not be taken. The hearing may be given individually or collectively, depending upon the facts of such each situation.

(iv) Law respects possession even if there is no valid title to support it. Law does not permit any person to take law into his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a Court.

(v) No inflexible rule of hearing and due application of mind can be insisted upon in every or all cases. Each case depends upon its own backdrop. The removal of encroachment needs urgent action. But in this behalf what requires to be done by the competent authority is to ensure constant vigil on encroachment of the public places.

8. I have carefully scanned the judgment and decree dated October 25, 1996 whereby the MC was restrained from erasing the construction made over the land in dispute and from making interference in the peaceful enjoyment and use of it without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and without adopting due course of law. After filing of the writ petition KC instituted proceedings in respect of the decree dated October 25, 1996 (Annexure 5). The writ petition raises disputed questions of fact involving recording of evidence. The alternative remedy has already been availed by KC by initiating execution proceedings in respect of the land in question therefore he is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The fact that KC was ousted from the land in question with his consent cannot be appreciated being disputed questions of fact. Though KC in so many words averred in the "writ petition that after he became terrified from the threatening of Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, he wrote an application for allotment of a portion of land of an area of 100 sq. yds. but this fact has been denied by M. C. in the reply. Even counter affidavit of Shri Mohan Lal Gupta was not filed. Under these circumstances it is not necessary for me to enter into the controversy in detail. Suffice it to say that writ petition has no legs to stand.

CAN AN INTERIM ORDER BE PASSED u/s 151 CPC IN AN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS ?

9. This lakes me to the order dated Feb. 27, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Jaipur City, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in question during the pendency of execution petition.

10. Assailing the order of the learned executing Court Mr. P. C. Jain, learned counsel urged that the application u/s 151 CPC was not maintainable in execution proceedings. Once KC has lost his cause in the application for injunction inasmuch as the appeal and the revision petition filed by him has already been dismissed and thereafter in the writ petition filed by him no interim order was issued by this Court. KC therefore has abused the process of the Court. He defrauded the Court in suppressing the material facts and got the impugned order in his favour.

11. A cursory look at the impugned order demonstrates that it was passed in the presence of the counsel for MC after considering the argument that KC was validly dispossessed after service of notice effected upon him. KC before the executing Court asserted that he did not receive any notice and he moved application for summoning of the documents from the office of the MC. The executing Court was of the view that execution petition raises questions involving interpretation of law as well as disputed facts requiring detailed inquiry, therefore it passed an interim order under its inherent powers directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of property in question.

12. This is for the executing Court to examine as to whether the compromise decree for injunction passed in Lok Adalat was obeyed or not? But when decree holder says that decree for an injunction has not been obeyed, the provisions contained in order 21 Rule 32(5) are attracted which provide thus:--

"Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree holder or some other person app

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment debtor and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree." 13. The objections with regard to abuse of process of law and suppression of material facts by KC may be raised before the executing Court. The impugned order has been passed under the inherent powers and I see no jurisdictional error in the said order as disputed questions of fact are involved in the execution petition which cannot be answered straight away on the basis of allegations and counter allegations of the parties. If the order is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. 14. In the result, having regard to the view that I have taken, the writ petition and the revision both are dismissed. The record of the executing Court be remitted forthwith. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned executing Court is directed to adjudicate upon the execution petition within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on May 31, 1997 for seeking further instructions. Costs easy.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-07-2020 Manish Sharma & Another Versus Urmila Arora High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Tara Prasad Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
17-06-2020 Aman Sharma Versus The Chief Election Commissioner & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-06-2020 Rajan Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
02-06-2020 Prateek Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
30-05-2020 Kshitiz Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
06-05-2020 Kamla Sharma Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Anurag Sarmah @ Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
22-04-2020 Anand Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
15-04-2020 Sanjeev Sharma Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
13-04-2020 Mamta Sharma & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Mohmmad Yunus Versus Madho Prasad Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
30-03-2020 Prashant Sharma Versus State of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
20-03-2020 Anju Sharma Versus Sunita Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-03-2020 Saurav Sharma Versus State of HP & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
13-03-2020 Unnati Bhardwaj & Another Versus K.P. Sharma High Court of Delhi
11-03-2020 Ajay Sharma & Others Versus Kulwant Singh High Court of Delhi
06-03-2020 Rampal Sharma & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-03-2020 M/s. N.K. Enterprise, West Bengal & Another V/S Narayan Prasad Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Sancha Bahadur Subba Versus Ramesh Sharma High Court of Sikkim
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-03-2020 Amitabh Versus Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-02-2020 Dilip Kumar Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
24-02-2020 Sarwan Kumar Sharma Versus Ranjana Sharma @ Ranjana Rani & Another High Court of Delhi
19-02-2020 Bhupendra Sharma & Others Versus Union of India, Represented By The Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 ICICI Bank Ltd., Rajashtan & Others Versus Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-02-2020 Ram Prakash Sharma Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-02-2020 Vinay Sharma Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Harinarayan Sharma Versus Vijay Kumar Soni National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Umesh Chand Sharma & Others Versus Parsvnath Developers Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Shashibala M. Sharma Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 Brahmacharimayum Achou Sharma & Others Versus The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary (Power), Govt. of Manipur & Others High Court of Manipur
10-02-2020 Mukulika Sharma & Others Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
06-02-2020 Vipin Sharma Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-02-2020 Kanwar Pal Sharma Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Nitin Sharma Versus State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
05-02-2020 Union of India & Another Versus Vinay Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Shubhash Kumar Sharma Versus Harish Chander Rawal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Puroshattam Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Gwalior North M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
03-02-2020 Axis Bank Limited V/S Ravindra Kumar Sharma and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
30-01-2020 Veena Rani & Others Versus Purshottam Dass Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Shivam Sharma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-01-2020 M/s. CNA Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Mansi Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
27-01-2020 Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mullanpur & Another Versus Sheshpal Sharma & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Deepak Sharma Versus Jabalpur Development Authority & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
22-01-2020 M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tadepallygudem Versus V. Narahari Sharma & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-01-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. Managing Director & Another Versus Ramesh Kumar Sharma Supreme Court of India
15-01-2020 New Delhi Municipal Council Versus Vijay Kumar Sharma High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 Sonia Sharma Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-01-2020 Vinay Sharma Versus The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Goutam Buddha Agrawal Versus Satyanarayan Sharma & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma V/S Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
08-01-2020 Badri Narayan Sharma Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 J.S. Sharma & Sons Versus Shiv Devi Meena High Court of Delhi
02-01-2020 Mithun Kumar Sharma Versus Mamta Sharma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-12-2019 BPTP Ltd., Through its Managing Director, New Delhi Versus Pradeep Sharma & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 Indrakumar Sharma Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 Ambika Jain & Others Versus Ram Prakash Sharma & Others High Court of Delhi
17-12-2019 Raj Kumari & Others Versus Surinder Pal Sharma Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 Savita Sharma & Others Versus Master Abeer Singh & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
16-12-2019 Abhey Kumar Sharma & Another Versus Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
13-12-2019 M/s. State Bank of Mysore, (Now State Bank of India), Sharad Sharma, (Retd.) Managing Director & Others Versus P. Mukundan & Others High Court of Karnataka
13-12-2019 Vishnu Kant Sharma Versus Chief Election Commissioner & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
09-12-2019 Bharati Sharma Versus The State & Others High Court of Delhi
09-12-2019 State of H.P. & Another Versus P. C. Sharma High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-12-2019 Arun Vats Versus Pallavi Sharma & Another High Court of Delhi
05-12-2019 Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Versus Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Another Supreme Court of India
05-12-2019 M/s. C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Others Versus Vidya Bhusan Sharma West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-12-2019 Divisional Manager, LIC of India Versus Renuka Sharma High Court of Delhi
03-12-2019 Meena Sharma Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Santosh Sharma Versus Vishnu Maheswari & Others Supreme Court of India
27-11-2019 Vikash Kumar Sharma Versus State High Court of Delhi
19-11-2019 P.K. Sharma @ Purshotam Kumar Sharma Versus NBCC (India) Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-11-2019 Sharma Ayurved Private Limited Versus B.N. Sharma Ayurved Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-11-2019 U.C. Sharma Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
08-11-2019 Nalini Sharma Versus Honble Lt. Governor & Others High Court of Delhi
05-11-2019 Bansidhar Sharma (Since Deceased), Rep by his Legal Representative Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others Supreme Court of India
01-11-2019 Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Versus K.K. Sharma & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-10-2019 Rajiv Kumar Sharma & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
17-10-2019 Dara Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Himanshu Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-10-2019 L.V. Subrahmanya Sharma Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-10-2019 Ziaullah Versus Reghu Vansh Mani Sharma High Court of Delhi
15-10-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board & Another Versus Gururaj Prasad Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-10-2019 Ravikant Sharma Versus Emerging Valley Private Limited & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
14-10-2019 Ram Lakhan Sharma Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi