The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the respondent authorities not to demolish the construction in dispute said to be made on the encroached government land at Village Nimthur in Tehsil Bhanpura of District Mandsaur.

A Single Bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Late Shri R.M. Sojatia Foundation Trust.

The High Court noted that the petitioner property was ordered to be demolished by giving him a notice of less than one day time by the respondent authorities.

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to quash the showcause notice dated 27.12.2022 issued by the respondent no 2 to the petitioners to demolish the construction said to be made on the government land on survey ad-measuring 0.066 hectares situated at Village Nimthur, Tehsil – Bhanpura, District – Mandsaur.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed an Election Petition against a sitting MLA of the ruling party and due to which the aforesaid notice was served upon the petitioners on 28.12.2022 at about 06:45 p.m and he was directed to file their reply in the morning of the very next day i.e 29.12.2012, otherwise the construction made by him on the aforesaid land will be demolished. The contents of the notice apparently shows that the same has been given with political reasons and proper opportunity has not been given to the petitioners to file their reply therefore, the same is required to be quashed.

Government Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that it is very specifically been mentioned that after demarcation, it was found that the petitioners have encroached about 0.066 hectares of government land therefore, the said notice was issued and he was provided an opportunity to file the reply and, therefore he is not entitled for any relief.

“It is apparent from the record that the show cause notice dated 27.12.2022 was served upon to the petitioners on 28.12.2022 at about 6:45 p.m and they were directed to file their reply on the very next day i.e 29.12.2022 stating therein that otherwise the construction in question will be demolished. It is mentioned in the notice itself that petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute for the last 10 years. In these circumstances, it appears appropriate to give some reasonable time to the petitioners to file the reply and till then the respondents are required to be restrained from demolishing the construction in question”, the Court observed.

Hence, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the respondents that they will provide relevant papers with regard to demarcation of the land in question to the petitioners within 3 days and thereafter, petitioners will file their reply before the competent authority/ respondent no 2 within 10 days and thereafter, respondent no 2 will pass appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the reply submitted by the petitioners.

“In the meantime, respondents will not demolish the construction in dispute said to be made on the encroached land bearing survey ad-measuring 0.066 hectares situated at Village Nimthur, Tehsil Bhanpura, District Mandsaur.

It is further directed that respondents will not take any coercive action against the petitioners after passing of the said order for 7 days and provide reasonable time to the petitioners to approach the competent authority”, the Court ordered.

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking changes to the rule relating to a higher pension to the MLAs, MPs and ministers in the country.

The PIL, filed through Advocate Purva Jain, states that if an MLA becomes an MP after holding Assembly post then he gets the salary and allowance of both MLA and MP. Similarly, on being elected as a Rajya Sabha MP and becoming a Union Minister, the minister gets the salary and allowance and pension of both MLA and MP.

Government officials and employees get the same pension and leaders are entitled to more than one pension even if they become MLAs or MPs for a day. If there is only one pension from a peon to a Supreme Court judge in the country, then why is there a rule to give more than one pension to MPs, MLAs and Ministers, the PIL asked.

The petitioner said the right to equality as laid down by the Constitution should be followed. Guidelines should also be made for pension of public representatives, like government servants. Tenure of at least five years should be made compulsory. The minister, MP and MLA should get the pension of the post they hold in the end, and they should not be entitled to any pension while holding government posts as Minister or on Board of Corporations, since the government has stopped pension of government employees appointed after March 2005, claimed the petitioner.

Further, the petition demanded that the Court should direct the government to fix the salary and pension of MP-MLAs. For this, a committee or board should be created which has complete record of every MLA and MP in the country so that he or she cannot get salary or more than one pension benefit anywhere in the country. Only the leader who has completed at least five years of tenure should be eligible for pension.

Also Read: Supreme Court rules on period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration Act

In the petition it was pointed out that earlier, in the case of MPs, it was the rule that anyone who completed a 4-year term will be eligible for pension, but in 2004, the Central Government amended it and made a provision that one who becomes an MP even for one day will be entitled to pension.

The Division Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Shailendra Shukla after hearing the preliminary arguments, has ordered the hearing of the petition in the regular bench of the High Court.

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the issue of filth and noise pollution being spread by wedding banquet halls across the city.

The petitioner, Jitendra Badjatya, has filed the PIL through Advocate K.K. Gupta.

It was alleged in the PIL that the guidelines for disposal of garbage from banquet halls the city was not being followed. Rather than disposing the waste, most banquet halls leave food waste in drains leading to blockage in drains.

The petition said that as per the rules, parking at banquet halls should be arranged within the garden, but it is not happening. Visitors park their vehicles on the road and service road, leading to traffic jams.

Moreover, it was claimed in the PIL that on the day when there is any event in banquet halls, the lives of people living next to it becomes difficult, compounded by loud music late at night.

The petitioner has repeatedly complained to the authorities regarding the matter, but no action has been taken by them. Further, a situation of a dispute with the owner of the marriage gardens also arises, the PIL states.

Read Also: Delhi court acquits Priya Ramani in criminal defamation case by MJ Akbar, says Akbar’s case not true

Delhi High Court expresses concern over a sharp spike in Covid-19 cases in Delhi, slams government for overlooking ground realities. The court says, caution thrown to winds. Attorney General KK Venugopal grants consent for initiation of contempt proceedings against comedian Kunal Kamra, over his tweets about the Supreme Court. Writ filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking removal of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Mosque, allegedly built on Krishna Janmabhoomi. Patna High Court acquits death-row prisoner, setting aside conviction for murder on grounds of weak circumstantial evidence, court says, residual doubt is a factor for commuting sentence. Indore bench refuses to quash the FIR registered against Ekta Kapoor, in connection to alleged obscenity and dishonour to national emblem in the series titled ‘XXX’, Court holds that case is made out.