There is no dispute that the Municipal Corporation has issued a notice under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act A perusal of section 55(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act clearly indicates if it is found that any person has carried out any development of a temporary nature unauthorizedly as indicated in section 52 of the M.R.T.P. Act, the Corporation is empowered to order such person to remove or discontinue the use of the land unauthorizedly. The Municipal Corporation has to be satisfied that the authorized construction of a temporary nature is carried out as provided in section 52 of the M.R.T.P. Act. A perusal of section 55(2) of the M.R.T.P. Act clearly indicates that the decision of the planning authority on the question whether the development is a temporary in nature shall be final. In my view, the action taken by the Municipal Corporation under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act thus in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of section 55 read with section 55(2) is final and conclusive.{Para 12}
13. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the documents referred to and relied upon by the appellant in support of the submission of the appellant that the suit structure was not of a temporary nature and that the appellant has been carrying on business in the suit structure since 1961-1962.
14. I have given an opportunity to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to demonstrate before this Court from the documents produced before the learned trial Judge in support of his contention that the suit structure was not temporary structure and that the appellant has been carrying on business in the suit premises since 1961-1962. Pursuant to this opportunity granted by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to some of the documents which were on record before the learned trial Court, which are dealt with in the later part of the order.
15. Insofar as the alleged Deed of Declaration relied by the appellant dated 11th May, 1949 is concerned, a perusal of the said alleged Deed of Declaration does not indicate any description of the alleged structure between the two buildings. If according to the appellant, the appellant was carrying on business since 1961-1962 in the suit premises, such structure would have been definitely assessed by the Municipal Corporation in last several decades till date. Admittedly the temporary structure of the subject matter of the suit is not assessed between 1961 till date.
16. In my view merely on the basis of the said alleged Deed of Declaration dated 11th May, 1949, this Court cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been carrying on business in the said premises from 1961-1962.
17. Insofar as the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation under different provisions of the M.M.C. Act issued in the year 2005 and thereafter relied upon by the appellant is concerned, a perusal of such notices clearly indicates that the Municipal Corporation in the year 2005 had found that the appellant had stored some of the empty boxes in the open space between two buildings. The said empty boxes were without obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation. The prosecution was launched against the appellant pursuant to such action initiated by the Municipal Corporation. All such documents which are relied upon by the appellant would clearly indicate that there was no shed found by the Municipal Corporation on its visit in the year 2005. The empty boxes were stored in the open space. It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that whatever structures are put up by the appellant were after the year 2005.
18. In my view, none of these documents which are relied by the appellant would indicate that the suit structure which is the subject matter of the notice was a pacca structure or is in existence since 1961-62.
19. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant had obtained any permission from the Municipal Corporation for erection of such structure.
20. A perusal of the application, which was filed by the appellant for the purpose of obtaining the license under the provisions of the Shops and Establishment Act, which is annexed to the civil application filed by the intervenor clearly indicates that it was the case of the appellant himself that he started business in the premises some time in the year 2014.
21. Even copy of the passport, electricity bill and telephone bill, produced on record by the appellant would not indicate that the suit premises was a pacca structure or that the appellant was carrying on business in the premises since 1961-1962. If the appellant was carrying on any business in the premises since 1961-1962, the appellant would have in his possession several documents and/or permission from the Municipal Corporation or other authorities to indicate that such business was being carried on since 1961-1962. In my view the appeal is devoid of merits.
No comments:
Post a Comment