SAUGHT EXEMPTION FROM URBAN LAND CEILING FOR DONATION, LATER WITHDRAWN BY THE GOVT. AND LATER ALLOTTED THE SAME ON CONSIDERATION TO THE SAME PROPOSED DONEE UNDER SEC.23 [4] OF ACT, SO THE DONEE BECOMES ABSOLUTE OWNER BUT NOT DONEE= We are of the considered opinion that, since the Appellant-Society has become the absolute owner of the land by virtue of the order dated 13.02.2006 passed by the State Government, the Appellant- Society is at liberty to use the property in question to its benefit and advantage and the Writ Court, therefore, was not justified in making certain observations, which would come in the way of Appellant-Society in utilizing the land to its maximum advantage. 16. In the result, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the following observations made by the High Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and order: "...Accordingly, we can only direct M/s. Indo Arab league to strictly adhere to the laws applicable for the purpose of making any construction and as per the undertaking given by it in paragraph - 5 of their counter affidavit. The construction made also shall not be alienated in any manner, but have to be used only for cultural or religious purpose."

' 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5615 of 2007)


INDO ARAB LEAGUE Appellant
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

VERSUS

A.FAIZUDDIN & ORS. Respondents



O R D E R




1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 22445 of 2005, dated 11.07.2006.




4. Before delving into the merits of the case, we would first bring
forth the factual resume of the case. 
One Smt. Basheerunnisa Begum
was the original owner of the property in question. She had filed
an application before the State Government stating her intention
of donating the excess land, admeasuring 10,000 sq.mts., held by
her in Plot Nos. 63 and 66 at Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad to the Appellant-Society for promotion of its cultural
activities and construction of a complex by it and sought for
exemption from the provisions of Chapter III of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("the Act" for short).

5. The Appellant-Society had also filed an application dated
03.05.1984 before the State Government, inter alia, requesting the
Government to exempt the aforesaid excess land from the provisions
of the Act and thus enable the original owner to donate the said
land, for the purposes of construction and establishment of a
cultural centre, in favour of the Appellant-Society.

6. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,Hyderabad had examined the aforesaid requests and vide letterdated 10.07.1984, reported to the State Government that Smt.Basheerunnisa Begum ("original owner" for short) holds excessland, to the extent of 9056 sq.mts., in Plot Nos. 63 and 66 inSurvey Nos. 120 and 121 of Shaikpet village, Hyderabad.


7. The State Government, after examining the aforesaid requests of
the original owner, the Appellant-Society and the report of the
Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
Hyderabad had passed an order granting exemption from the
provisions of Ceiling Act to the aforesaid extent of excess vacant
land in exercise of its powers under clause (9) of Sub-Section (1)
of Section 20 of the Act, vide G.O.Ms. No. 1187, Revenue (UC.II)
Department, dated 16.07.1984. 
Therein, it was specifically noted
that the original owner shall not utilise the said land for any
other purpose but for the purpose stated in her application.

8. On a request made by the appellant on a later date, the State
Government, by its subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 154, dated 13.02.2006
has withdrawn its earlier exemption order contained in G.O.Ms.
No.1187 dated 16.07.1984 and allotted the said land in favour of Appellant-Society in exercise of its power under Section 23(4) of the Act, thereby the Appellant-Society has become the absolute
owner of the said land having right, title and interest in it.




9. A letter dated 20.09.2005, addressed to the Chief Justice of the
High Court was sent seeking his intervention in the interests of
minorities and to protect the land in question from being utilized
for commercial purposes. 
The said letter was treated as Public
Interest Litigation on the ground that the said land was being mis-
utilised for the purposes other than the purpose for which
exemption was granted under the Act and was taken up as Writ
Petition No. 22445 of 2005. 
The Court, by impugned judgment and
order directed the appellant-Society to strictly adhere to the
laws applicable for the purpose of making any construction as
undertaken by them in their counter affidavit and has further
directed not to alienate the subject land in any manner but to
utilize it only for cultural or religious purpose. Aggrieved by
the aforesaid direction, the Appellant-Society is before us in
this appeal.


10. The issue in this appeal is limited to the aforesaid observations
made in the impugned judgment and order by the Writ Court.

11. Shri. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Appellant-Society, would submit that in view of the several
Government Orders passed pursuant to the request made by the
original owner and thereafter by the Appellant-Society, the
Appellant-Society has become the absolute owner of the property in
question and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in
directing the Appellant-Society not to alienate the land and use
it in any manner other than for cultural or religious purposes.
The learned senior counsel would further submit that the statement
in the impugned judgment and order, to the effect that the
Appellant-Society would adhere to certain undertaking given by
them in paragraph 5 of their reply statement/counter affidavit, is
not proper and that the Writ Court has misinterpreted the
undertaking of the appellant-society. He explains that the
undertaking given by the Appellant-Society, before the High Court,
was to restrain itself from making any construction without
obtaining appropriate permission/licences from the regulatory
bodies such as Municipal Corporation and, therefore, submits that
the statement quoted above by the Writ Court is factually
incorrect.

12. Learned senior counsel for the State fairly states that 
the State
Government, after receiving appropriate fees/consideration, had
allotted land to the Appellant-Society, thereby, the absolute
ownership in the land vested in the Appellant-Society.


13. Since the Writ Court had treated the anonymous letter as a Public
Interest Litigation, there is no other person opposing the prayers
made by the Appellant-Society in this appeal.


14. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court. 
The High Court, after issuing appropriatenotices to the persons who would be aggrieved by the order, has
come to the conclusion that the Appellant-Society is the donee of
the land and, thereafter allottee of the land by virtue of the
order passed by the State Government dated 13.02.2006.
Inspite of
the aforesaid conclusion, the Court has directed the Appellant-
Society not to alienate the land in any manner but use it for a
particular purpose.

15. We are of the considered opinion that, 
since the Appellant-Society
has become the absolute owner of the land by virtue of the order
dated 13.02.2006 passed by the State Government, the Appellant-
Society is at liberty to use the property in question to itsbenefit and advantage 
and the Writ Court, therefore, was not
justified in making certain observations, which would come in the
way of Appellant-Society in utilizing the land to its maximum
advantage.
16. In the result, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the
following observations made by the High Court in paragraph 9 of the
impugned judgment and order:


"...Accordingly, we can only direct M/s. Indo Arab league to
strictly adhere to the laws applicable for the purpose of making
any construction and as per the undertaking given by it in
paragraph - 5 of their counter affidavit. The construction made
also shall not be alienated in any manner, but have to be used
only for cultural or religious purpose."

17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are
directed to bear their own costs.




Ordered accordingly.



........................J.
(H.L. DATTU)



........................J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 09, 2013.

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).5615/2007

INDO ARAB LEAGUE TR.ITS CHAIRMAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

A.FAIZUDDIN & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP, permission to file additional
documents and prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 09/01/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Ms. Anindita Pujari, Adv.
Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, Adv.
M/S. Lawyer'S Knit & Co.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S.S. Prasad, Adv.
For St. of A.P. Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Adv.
Mr. Rumi Chanda, Adv.

Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv.
Mr. K.J. John, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.






(NAVEEN KUMAR) (VINOD KULVI)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)

Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the PWD Act, 2005')= Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.25528 of 2012 has been filed in SLP(Crl.) No.3916 of 2010 by the respondent-wife inter alia for a direction to allow her to stay in the joint family house/shared household/permanent matrimonial home at D-279, Nirman Vihar, Delhi- 110 092.= having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, it would be only proper to resort to the provisions of Section 19(1)(f) of the PWD Act, 2005. We, accordingly, dispose of CRL. M.P. No.25528 of 2012 by directing the petitioner-husband to provide an alternative accommodation for the applicant-wife, suitable to her status and of the same level at which she had been enjoying in her shared household, as far as possible near her parents' residence. Such arrangement must be made by the petitioner-husband within the month of February, 2013. In the event, the petitioner-husband fails to provide such alternative accommodation, the applicant-wife would be entitled to arrange for an accommodation for herself, within the municipal limits of Delhi and the petitioner-husband shall make payment of the rent thereof regularly and without fail.

' 
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.1 SECTION II


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CRL.M.P. No.25528 of 2012 in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3916/2010

(From the judgement and order dated 22/03/2010 in CR.M.C. No.3959/2009, of
The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)

V.D.BHANOT Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SAVITA BHANOT Respondent(s)

(For directions and office report)

Date: 07/01/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN


For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Vibhor Vardhan, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S. Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Respondent-In-Person


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.25528 of 2012 has been filed
in SLP(Crl.) No.3916 of 2010 by the respondent-wife inter alia for a direction to allow her to stay in the joint family house/shared household/permanent matrimonial home at D-279, Nirman Vihar, Delhi-110 092.
In our order dated 07.02.2012 disposing of the aforesaid special
leave petition filed by the husband, we had in paragraph (11) of the
judgment directed that in terms of Section 19 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the PWD Act,
2005'), the petitioner was to provide a suitable portion of his
residence to the respondent-wife, together with all necessary
amenities to make such residential premises properly habitable for
her, within 29th February, 2012.
It appears that the said arrangement has not proved successful
and accordingly, despite the fact that such a direction had been
given, the petitioner-husband offered to find alternative
accommodation for the respondent-wife which she is not inclined to
accept. We had given liberty to the parties to apply to this Court
for further directions in case the said arrangement did not work.
Obviously, the said arrangement has failed and the applicant-
wife now prays that she should be allowed to reside in the household
of her parents-in-law.
Having heard the applicant-wife in person and the learned
counsel for the petitioner-husband, we are convinced that
having
regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties, it would be only proper to resort to the provisions of Section 19(1)(f) of the
PWD Act, 2005.
We, accordingly, dispose of CRL. M.P. No.25528 of 2012 by
directing the petitioner-husband to provide an alternative
accommodation for the applicant-wife, suitable to her status and of
the same level at which she had been enjoying in her shared
household, as far as possible near her parents' residence. 
Such
arrangement must be made by the petitioner-husband within the month
of February, 2013. 
In the event, the petitioner-husband fails to
provide such alternative accommodation, 
the applicant-wife would be
entitled to arrange for an accommodation for herself, within themunicipal limits of Delhi and the petitioner-husband shall make
payment of the rent thereof regularly and without fail.

| (Sanjay Kumar) Court Master | (Juginder Kaur) |
| |Assistant Registrar |

MISTAKE OF FACT = The appellant challenged the order of punishment in Writ Petition No.2942 of 2010. He also filed an application for withdrawal of the suit which was allowed by the concerned Court on 23.02.2010. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the appellant disclosed the factum of pendency of the suit and averred that he had filed a writ petition questioning the order of punishment because the Civil Court had not granted injunction. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by assuming that the appellant had suppressed the fact relating to the suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat. The learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of this Court in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 120 and held that the appellant who was guilty of suppressing material facts was not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.= Therefore, it must be held that the appellant had not suppressed the facts relating to the civil suit and dismissal of the application for temporary injunction and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by non-suiting him on the premise that he was guilty of not coming to the Court with clean hands. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also the one passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is restored to its original number. The High Court shall now decide the same on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

' 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.32533 OF 2011)


CHETAN DEV CHAWLA .......APPELLANT


VERSUS


STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS



O R D E R

Leave granted.
The only question which requires consideration in this appeal is
whether the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court were justified in non-suiting the appellant on the
ground that he had not approached the Court with clean hands.
While he was holding the post of Assistant in the Directorate of
Sports and Youth Affairs, Haryana, a departmental enquiry was initiated
against him vide Memo dated 6.11.2008 issued under the Haryana Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on the allegations that he had
helped his wife in fraudulently withdrawing the House Rent Allowance (HRA)
and that he had failed to submit a certificate about the employment of his
wife in Agriculture Department and drawal of HRA by her.
The Enquiry Officer submitted report with the finding that the
allegations levelled against the appellant have been proved. The
disciplinary authority accepted the report and issued show cause notice
dated 2.1.2010 to the appellant proposing the imposition of punishment of
reduction to the lower post of Clerk.
In the meanwhile, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.1338/2009
questioning the very initiation of enquiry vide memo dated 6.11.2008. He
also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was
dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat vide order dated
4.2.2010.
After 5 days of dismissal of the application for temporary
injunction, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 9.2.2010 and
confirmed the proposed punishment.
The appellant challenged the order of punishment in Writ Petition
No.2942 of 2010. 
He also filed an application for withdrawal of the suit
which was allowed by the concerned Court on 23.02.2010.
In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the appellant disclosed the
factum of pendency of the suit and averred that he had filed a writ
petition questioning the order of punishment because the Civil Court had
not granted injunction. 
However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition by assuming that the appellant had suppressed the fact
relating to the suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Sonepat. 
The learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of this Court
in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 120 and
 held
that the appellant who was guilty of suppressing material facts was notentitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the memo of Letters Patent Appeal filed by him, the appellant
adverted to the averments contained in paragraph 10 of the writ petition
filed by him and also pointed out that the suit had been dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2010. 
However, the Division Bench of the
High Court did not feel convinced with the explanation given by the
appellant that he had not concealed any fact from the Court and negatived
his challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused
the record. 
The respondents have not controverted that in paragraph 10 of
the writ petition filed by him, the appellant had unequivocally disclosed
the facts relating to the civil suit, dismissal of the injunction
application and submission of application for withdrawal of the suit. 
They
have also not disputed that in the memo of Letters Patent Appeal, the
appellant had referred to the averments contained in paragraph 10 of the
writ petition. 
Therefore, it must be held that the appellant had not
suppressed the facts relating to the civil suit and dismissal of the
application for temporary injunction and the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by non-suiting him
on the premise that he was guilty of not coming to the Court with clean
hands.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order as also
the one passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ
petition filed by the appellant is restored to its original number. The
High Court shall now decide the same on merits after giving opportunity ofhearing to the parties.


...........................J.
(G.S.SINGHVI)




...........................J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 02, 2013.










ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVB


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).32533/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 26/08/2011 in LPA No.586/2011 of The
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

CHETAN DEV CHAWLA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief)

Date: 02/01/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr.T.N.Tripathi, Adv.
Mr.Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms.Rokokieno Mor, Adv.
Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.



(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master
( Signed order is placed on the file )

UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WITH OUT PERMISSION UNDER Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') = fresh writ petition on third round litigation = the action taken by the Corporation is ultra vires the provision contained in Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') and held that in view of the observations made by this Court, the High Court cannot interfere with the notices issued under Section 488 of the 1888 Act. We have also gone through Section 53 of the 1966 Act relied upon by Shri Nariman in support of his argument that the Corporation is not entitled to carry out the demolition without giving notice to the occupiers under proviso to Section 53(3). In our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke Section 53(3) of the 1966 Act in this round of litigation and seek protection of the construction which has been found to be illegal. While deciding Civil Appeal No.7934/2012 and connected matters this Court considered all the contentions urged on behalf of the housing societies and their members and rejected the same by assigning detailed reasons. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise a new plea and frustrate the action being taken by the Corporation in furtherance of the notices issued earlier and the observations made by this Court.= giving only 48 hours= keeping in view the fact that the occupants of the illegally constructed flats may not have got sufficient time to vacate the same, we allow five months time to the petitioners and other occupiers of illegal portions of the buildings to vacate the same. This would be subject to the following conditions: i) Within four weeks from today they shall file affidavits in this Court and give unequivocal undertaking that at the end of five months period all of them will voluntarily vacate the disputed portions of the buildings and will not cause any hindrance in the action which may be taken by the Corporation in the light of the observations made by this Court in judgment dated 27.2.2013 in Civil Appeal No.7934/2012 and connected matters. ii) During the period of five months, the petitioners and other occupiers shall not induct any other person in the disputed premises. They shall also not file litigation of any kind in the Bombay High Court or the Courts subordinate to the High Court for frustrating the action already taken by the Corporation or which may be taken hereinafter. Shri Nariman says that the Corporation has disconnected the amenities including the lift service to the buildings in question. Shri Vahanvati, learned Attorney General says that all the amenities which were available to the buildings till last week of April shall be continued for a further period of five months and if any service has been discontinued in the meantime, the same shall be restored immediately. It is made clear that at the end of five months period the Corporation shall have to take action in the light of the observations made in judgment dated 27.2.2013.

' 
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).17002/2013

(From the judgement and order dated 29/04/2013 in WP No.1076/2013 of The
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

RAJESH S. PAREKH & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment and
with prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 02/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) Mr.F.S.Nariman, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Rajendra Pai, Adv.
Mr.Shivaji M.Jadhav, Adv.
Mr.Aloukik Pai, Adv.
Mr.Kamlesh Kharade, Adv.
Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R.,Adv.
Mr.Anish Shah, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.Goolam E.Vahanvati, AG
Mr.Pallav Shishodia, Sr.Adv.
Mr.S.Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr.J.J.Xavier, Adv.
Mr.Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Mr.Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Ms.Meera Mathur, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

This petition filed by Rajesh S.Parekh and three others against
order dated 29.04.2013 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Writ Petition No.1076/2013 is another attempt by the owners/occupiers of
flats in the buildings constructed in Campa Cola Compound, Wroli to stall
the action initiated by the officers and employees of the Municipal
Corporation of Mumbai (for short, 'the Corporation') for demolition of the
illegally constructed portions of the buildings.

Two of the petitioners are members of B.Y.Apartments Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. and the other two are members of Esha Ekta Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd. 
These two societies and Patel Apartments Cooperative
Housing Society Limited, Orchid Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Midtown Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Shubh Apartment
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and some of their members filed long
cause suits for quashing notices dated 11.11.2005, 19.11.2005 and 5.12.2005
issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, 'the 1888 Act') and order dated
3/8.12.2005 passed by the Competent Authority. 
They also filed applications
for restraining the Corporation from demolishing the illegal portions of the building. 
The applications were dismissed by the trial Court on the
ground that the developers/builders had constructed many floors without obtaining permission from the Planning Authority. 
The trial Court also
observed that the members of the housing societies were very much aware of
the illegal nature of the construction and they were not entitled to
injunction. 
The appeals filed by the housing societies and their members
were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. 
The
special leave petitions filed by them, which were converted into Civil
Appeal Nos. 7934-7938/2012 were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated
27.2.2013.
 Writ Petition No.6550/2010 filed by Campa Cola Residents'
Association, of which residents of the six housing societies are members,
for regularization of the illegal construction was transferred to this
Court vide order dated 29.2.2012 and was registered as Transferred Case
(Civil) No.55/2012. 
The same was also dismissed along with the civil
appeals and it was declared that there is no impediment in the
implementation of notices issued by the Corporation.
 Paragraphs 45 to 47 of
judgment dated 27.2.2013 are reproduced below:

"45. In view of the above discussion, 
we hold that the
petitioners in the transferred case have failed to make out a
case for directing the respondents to regularize the
construction made in violation of the sanctioned plan. 
Rather,
the ratio of the above-noted judgments and, in particular, Royal
Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra) is
clearly attracted in the present case. 
We would like to
reiterate that no authority administering municipal laws and
other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned
plan. 
The Courts are also expected to refrain from exercising
equitable jurisdiction for regularization of illegal and
unauthorized constructions else it would encourage violators of
the planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of
planned development of urban as well as rural areas.
46. In the result, the appeals and the transferred case are
dismissed and it is declared that there is no impediment in the
implementation of notices issued by the Corporation under
Section 351 of the 1888 Act and order dated 3/8.12.2005 passed
by the competent authority and the Corporation shall take
necessary action in the matter at the earliest.

47. We also direct that the State Government and its
functionaries/officers as also the officers/employees of the
Corporation shall not put any hurdle or obstacle in the
implementation of notices issued under Section 351 of the 1888
Act."



When the Corporation initiated action to demolish the illegal
portions of the buildings, the petitioners herein filed Writ Petition
No.1076/2013. Some other members of the cooperative housing societies filedWrit Petition No. 1077/2013 with similar prayer. 
The Division Bench of the
High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal
No.7934/2012
 - Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited
and others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and others and connected
matters,
 noticed the argument of the petitioners that 
the action taken by
the Corporation is ultra vires the provision contained in Section 53(3) of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966
Act') and held that in view of the observations made by this Court, the
High Court cannot interfere with the notices issued under Section 488 of
the 1888 Act.

We have heard Shri F.S.Nariman, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Goolam E.Vahanvati, learned Attorney General appearing
for the Corporation and carefully perused the record. 
We have also gone
through Section 53 of the 1966 Act relied upon by Shri Nariman in support of his argument that the Corporation is not entitled to carry out the demolition without giving notice to the occupiers under proviso to Section 53(3).

In our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke
Section 53(3) of the 1966 Act in this round of litigation and seek
protection of the construction which has been found to be illegal. 
While
deciding Civil Appeal No.7934/2012 and connected matters this Court
considered all the contentions urged on behalf of the housing societies and
their members and rejected the same by assigning detailed reasons.


Therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise a new plea and
frustrate the action being taken by the Corporation in furtherance of the
notices issued earlier and the observations made by this Court.

Shri Nariman criticised the Corporation for giving only 48 hours
notice to the occupiers of the illegal portions of the building, but we do
not thing that the officers and employees of the Corporation can be blamed
for having taken action in the light of the notices issued in 2005 and the
judgment of this Court.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
 However,
keeping in view the fact that the occupants of the illegally constructed
flats may not have got sufficient time to vacate the same, we allow five
months time to the petitioners and other occupiers of illegal portions of
the buildings to vacate the same. This would be subject to the following
conditions:

i) Within four weeks from today they shall file affidavits in
this Court and give unequivocal undertaking that at the end of
five months period all of them will voluntarily vacate the
disputed portions of the buildings and will not cause any
hindrance in the action which may be taken by the Corporation in
the light of the observations made by this Court in judgment
dated 27.2.2013 in Civil Appeal No.7934/2012 and connected
matters.


ii) During the period of five months, the petitioners and
other occupiers shall not induct any other person in the disputed
premises. They shall also not file litigation of any kind in the
Bombay High Court or the Courts subordinate to the High Court for
frustrating the action already taken by the Corporation or which
may be taken hereinafter.


Shri Nariman says that the Corporation has disconnected the
amenities including the lift service to the buildings in question. Shri
Vahanvati, learned Attorney General says that all the amenities which were
available to the buildings till last week of April shall be continued for a
further period of five months and if any service has been discontinued in
the meantime, the same shall be restored immediately.

It is made clear that at the end of five months period the
Corporation shall have to take action in the light of the observations made
in judgment dated 27.2.2013.
(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master

Or.1, rule 10 is maintainable when defendant's counsel failed to intimate the death of the defendant with in time to court and to the plaintiff : No suit abated totally on the death of one of the defendant while other defendants are on record : or.22, rule 4, 10 A and or.1C.P.C. AND,art.120,121 limitation act and order 1 rule 10 cpc ="The suit was originally instituted by one plaintiff i.e., petitioner herein, against two defendants. When the 2nd defendant died, petitioner took prompt steps by filing I.A.No.810 of 2004 and the legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 3 to 9. The 1st defendant is said to have died on 31.07.2001 long before I.A. No.810 of 2004 was filed. Had the petitioner been aware of the factum of the death of the first defendant, he would have certainly taken steps to bring the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record. The record discloses that defendants 1 and 2 were represented by the same counsel in the trial Court. Rule 10-A of Order XXII C.P.C. places an obligation on the counsel to inform the Court as well as the other party, whenever his client dies, during the pendency of the proceedings. This Court has taken view in several matters that the limitation to file an application to bring the legal representatives of a party to the suit, on record would commence from the date, on which the other party in the suit, receives the intimation through a memo filed under Rule 10-A of Order XXII C.P.C. That having not been done in this case, the proposed respondents cannot resist the attempts made by the petitioner to bring the legal representatives on record, or to implead them as defendants.

' 
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIIA


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14997/2013

(From the judgement and order dated 31/01/2013 in CRP No.6363/2012 of The
HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD)

JAYARAMA REDDY & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
N. SANKAR REDDY Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief)

Date: 03/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI

For Petitioner(s) Mr.A.T.M.Rangaramanujam, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Prakhar Sharma, Adv.
Ms.Anu Gupta, A.O.R.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

This petition is directed against order dated 31.01.2013 passed
by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby he
allowed the revision filed by the respondent, set aside order dated
6.11.2012 passed by Ist Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in
I.A.No......./2012 (CF No.13916/2012 in OS No.1148/1998) and granted the
prayer made by the plaintiff- respondent for impleadment of the legal
representatives of defendant No.1 as defendant Nos.10 to 15.
We have heard Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
Respondent N. Sankar Reddy filed suit (OS No.1148/1998) against
N. Rami Reddy and Sivalinga Reddy (predecessor of the petitioners herein)
for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of
the suit, defendant No.2 died and in his place defendant Nos.3 to 9 were
added as parties vide order dated 26.7.2004. After some time, defendant
No.1 also died and the respondent filed I.A. No.341/2003 for condonation of
delay of 506 days in filing of an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC.
The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of delay and the
order of the trial Court was upheld by the High Court while dismissing CRP
No.3201/2003 filed by the respondent.
Soon after dismissal of the revision filed by the respondent,
the petitioners filed IA No.523/2004 for dismissal of the suit on the
ground that due to non-impleadment of the legal representatives of
defendant No.1, the same had abated. That application was allowed by thetrial Court on 9.9.2004. 
CRP No.5158/2004 filed by the respondent was
partly allowed by the High Court and the parties were given liberty to
agitate the issue of abatement at the time of disposal of the suit. 
The
appeal filed against the abatement order was also allowed by the High Court
vide order dated 28.12.2011 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court
for fresh disposal of the suit.
After remand, the respondent filed CF No.13916/2012 under Order
1 Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated
6.11.2012 on the ground that the revision filed by the respondent against
the rejection of the prayer made in I.A. No.341/2003 had been dismissed by
the High Court.
The respondent challenged the trial Court's order in CRP
No.6363/2012. The learned Single Judge entertained and allowed the same by
making the following observations:
"The suit was originally instituted by one plaintiff i.e.,
petitioner herein, against two defendants. When the 2nd
defendant died, petitioner took prompt steps by filing
I.A.No.810 of 2004 and the legal representatives were brought on
record as defendants 3 to 9. 
The 1st defendant is said to have
died on 31.07.2001 long before I.A. No.810 of 2004 was filed.
Had the petitioner been aware of the factum of the death of the
first defendant, he would have certainly taken steps to bring
the legal representatives of the 1st defendant on record.

The record discloses that defendants 1 and 2 were represented by
the same counsel in the trial Court.
 Rule 10-A of Order XXII
C.P.C. places an obligation on the counsel to inform the Court
as well as the other party, whenever his client dies, during the
pendency of the proceedings. 
This Court has taken view in
several matters that the limitation to file an application to
bring the legal representatives of a party to the suit, on
record would commence from the date, on which the other party in the suit, receives the intimation through a memo filed under
Rule 10-A of Order XXII C.P.C. 
That having not been done in
this case, the proposed respondents cannot resist the attempts
made by the petitioner to bring the legal representatives on
record, or to implead them as defendants.


It is at the instance of respondents 3 to 9 that the trial Court
declared that suit stood dismissed as abated. 
A decree to that
effect was passed on 09.09.2004. 
The petitioner was rightly
advised to file revision as well as an appeal. 
The reason is
that the decree came to be passed in the suit as a consequence
of the order in I.A.No.523 of 2004. 
That order could have been
challenged only by filing revision. 
Since a decree has also been
passed, remedy of appeal must be availed, before lower appellate
Court.
 In both the proceedings, the petitioner was
successful. The result is that the suit remained on the file of
trial Court.


This Court made it amply clear in its order passed in the C.R.P.
that the question as to 
whether the death of the 1st defendant
resulted in abatement must be examined independently.
 It is not
a case, where the sole defendant in the suit died.
 Defendants 3
to 9 were very much on record. 
Till now, no such effort was
made. 
The presumption is that the suit remained unabated and
that at the most, abatement is vis-a-vis the 1st defendant. 
Now
that the efforts are being made to bring the legal
representatives of the first defendant on record, there should
not be any plausible objection. 
In case, such of the
respondents, who are the legal representatives of the 1st
defendant oppose the effort made by the petitioner to implead
them in the suit, a presumption has to be drawn to the effect
that they do not have any resistance to the offer and the
decree, if any, that may be passed in the suit shall bind them
also.


It may be true that there was some uncertainty in the matter as
to the status of the suit, in the light of the orders passed by
this Court and the lower appellate Court.


However, the trial Court ought to have numbered the I.A. and
heard the same on merits. 
Instead, a cryptic order, which does
not make any sense, has been passed. 
Portions of the order are
in fact derogatory. It reads:


"Rejected 
the Hon'ble High Court in C.F.No.5158/2004 given a
direction stating that I.A.423/04 in O.S.No.1148/98 has to be
agitated by the parties at the time of disposal of the suit 
theHon'ble IX AD], CTR in A.S.No.151/05 relating to OS.No.
1148/1998 instructed the court to consider the suit on merits as
per order in Hon'ble High Court by giving the opportunity to the
parties to agitate the question involved in I.A.No.523/04 at the
time of the disposal of the suit. 
Neither the High Court 
nor IX AD], CTR has directed the court to conduct the . . . trial or to
take further evidence on either side. 
Therefore
petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to file the present
petition. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable and this
petition is rejected." (Verbatim reproduction)


Learned Presiding Officer ought to have bestowed proper
attention while dealing with the matter of this nature. 
It is
only gross negligence or total indifference or lack of basics on
the part of the officer, that bring about such a hopelessly bad
order. 
It is hoped that the officer would not permit such
instances to recur.


In our view, the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge
for setting aside the order of the trial Court and allowing the application
filed by the respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are legally correct and
the impugned order does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity
requiring interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.


(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master

-----------------------
5