Madhya Pradesh High Court
CONC/312/2021 of RAJESHWAR BABA Vs SMT PRIYANKA PATEL on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 312 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAJESHWAR BABA S/O LATE SHRI ANANDRAOSARKANUNGO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION:NI 109, MULLAN WADI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.SMT PRIYANKA PATEL CHIEF MUNICIPALOFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KHARGONE(MADHYA PRADESH)OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KHARGONE(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SMT. ANUGRAHA P. THE COLLECTORK H A R G O N E COLLECTOR OFFICE DISTKHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)K H A R G O N E COLLECTOR OFFICE DISTKHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.R..C. KHETRIYA THE TEHSILDAR COLLECTOROFFICE DIST KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SACHIN PARMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESOPNDENT NO.1)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated12.09.2019 passed in W.P. No.1766 of 2017 which was disposed off with thefollowing direction:
"The matter is remitted back to the Municipal Council to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.4. The competentauthority is directed to conduct a summary enquiry in order toverify that the petitioner has purchased the same house which ismentioned in the compromise decree. If competent authoritycomes to the conclusion that respondent No.4 was in possessionof House No.109, Mullanwadi and petitioner has wronglydispossessed and demolished his house, then he is directed totake action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Thepetitioner be directed to restore the possession of the respondentno.4 and pay compensation to him. If necessary, the competentauthority may take necessary assistance from Tehsildar for thepurpose of demarcation. If findings are recorded in favour of thepetitioner then after undertaking all these exercise hisapplication for revival of building permission be considered."
2. Reply has been filed by the respondents along with which they havefiled an order dated 24.11.2021 whereby in pursuance of the aforesaid order theNagar Palika Parishad, Khargone has carried out the necessary proceedings andhas decided the matter as per the directions given by this Court.
3. In view of the aforesaid order, nothing further survives fordetermination in this petition which is accordingly disposed off reserving libertyto the petitioner to challenge the order dated 24.11.2021 in accordance with law.
jyoti
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE