The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore Bench has held that while any person can complain of illegal construction, the applicant must reside within the area governed by the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The Court clarified that the right under Section 307(5) of the 1956 Act is conferred not only on the Corporation but on any other person to apply to the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of a building that contravenes the Act or bye-laws.
The High Court went to hold that the remedy under Section 307(5) is independent of and different from the remedies under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and is also independent of Section 91 of the CPC. Further, a person residing outside the municipal area, including within the limits of a Cantonment Board governed by the Cantonment Act, 2006, cannot maintain an application under Section 307(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf noted that the Full Bench in the case of Dilip Kaushal & another Vs. State of MP & Ors [2008(3) JLJ 171], had held that the language of sub-section (5) of Section 307 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, is clear and that not only the Corporation but any other person can apply to the District Court for injunction for removal or alteration of a building that contravenes the Act or bye-laws. The Full Bench further held that the locus standi under Section 307(5) is not restricted to a person affected by the violation but encompasses all persons residing within the area to which the Act of 1956 applies.
The Court observed that the applicant had shown his address as 28, Shreeram Colony, Gurjar Kheda, Mhow, District Indore in both the original application and the civil revision, and this address admittedly does not fall within the area of Indore Municipal Corporation but lies within the area of Mhow Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonment Act, 2006.
The Court further noted that the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 does not apply to areas governed by the Cantonment Act, 2006. The contention regarding the applicant’s house in Sukhlia Colony was held to be of no assistance since the applicant had consistently shown his Mhow address in the original application, the civil revision, and the affidavit.
Briefly, the applicant, Dharmendra Shukla, filed an application under Section 307(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 before the District Court, Indore, alleging that respondents No. 1 and 5 had constructed a building at Race Course Road, Indore, in contravention of the sanctioned map and building permission and had started a hospital there. The applicant claimed that despite his complaint to the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, no action was taken, prompting him to seek a direction for removal of the illegal construction.
Respondents No. 1 and 5 moved an application contending that the applicant was not a resident of the Indore Municipal Corporation area and therefore could not maintain an application under Section 307(5) of the Act. The Trial Court allowed the respondent’s application and dismissed the applicant’s application on the ground that he was not a resident of the Municipal area of Indore.
