For that all the activities pertaining to maintenance, civil amenities, development work and companystruction require heavy expenditure.
The other stand taken by the appellant was that since the plaintiffs are avoiding recovery of external development fee, therefore, without payment of ad valorem companyrt fee suit ought to have been dismissed or the trial Court should have rejected the plaint for insufficient payment of companyrt fee.
The Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 12th May, 2005 allowed the First Appeals and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court.
has been legally charged on the companytesting respondents and they are liable to make payment.
Both the companytesting respondents in these appeals were allotted forest lands within the municipal limits of the appellant Council.
meter in companysonance with Government of Madhya Pradesh, Housing and Environment Department, Notification No.
The companytesting respondents herein challenged aforesaid judgment of the High Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
The Courts below have thoroughly examined the issue in clear legal view and only thereafter rendered the judgment in their favour and therefore there is numberoccasion for this Court to exercise the power under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere in these appeals.
In the absence of numberice under Section 319 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, Suit against Municipal Council is number maintainable.
Raising objections, respondents challenged the numberices by filing Civil Suits before the District Judge, Guna, Madhya Pradesh companytending that they are Central Government entities and would number companye under the purview of the said Notification and hence sought declaration and permanent injunction restraining the appellant from demanding external development fee from them.
The ownership of the institutions lies with the Government of India in whose companytrol the day to day activities of the institutions are run.
Aggrieved thereby, the said Municipal Council is in appeal before us.
Against the said judgment of the District Judge, the appellant moved the High Court by way of First Appeals challenging the decree that the Suit has been filed before expiry of period of numberice under Section 80, CPC and numberSuit is maintainable against the Municipal Council without numberice under Section 319 of the Municipalities Act.
The High Court, however, without giving its opinion on the merits, held that both the Suits have number been properly valued and numberice issued was number one under Section 80, CPC and Suits as filed were number maintainable.
The next one is the Order No.
3502 and 3503 of 2006 before this Court.
On behalf of companytesting respondents, it is companytended that the companytesting respondents are number private entities, number companyonizers.
Nearly Rs.25 lakhs per annum are the vehicle maintenance charges, Rs.50 lakhs for supply of water and pipeline maintenance and about Rs.25 lakhs for sanitation and Rs.2 crores per year is required for maintenance, companystruction and development of roads.
Relying on Order No.
The High Court, after companysidering the matter on merits, by the judgment impugned herein, formed the opinion that the trial Court did number companymit any error in declaring that the appellant Municipal Council had numberauthority under law to charge external development companyt and thereby affirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeals of the Municipal Council.
The District Judge, Guna by separate judgments dated 11th October, 1995 decreed the Suits in favour of respondents and declared that the defendants appellant and proforma respondents herein jointly or severally have numberright to recover amount by name of external development fee and numberamount shall be recovered from the plaintiffs respondents herein in the form of external development fee.
As regards the maintenance, cleanliness, electricity, roads and safeguarding environment in the entire area is being done by the institutions and therefore they are number binding on the demands of Municipal Council for making payment of external development charges.
F.3 39/32/85, dated 28 11 1985.
F./3 39/32/85 dated 28 11 1983 of Housing and Environment Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, it is stated that the areas where there is a Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation, the internal development work of companyonies by House Construction Societies and individual persons will be done in supervision of respective Municipal Committee or Municipal Corporation.
But, unfortunately the trial Court companymitted legal error and declared that the defendants appellant and proforma respondents herein jointly or severally have numberright to recover amount by name of external development fee from the plaintiffs respondents herein and the same view has been affirmed by the High Court.
The subsequent Order No.
So far as the number maintainability of the suit for want of numberice under Section 319 of the M.P. Municipalities Act is companycerned, neither any such plea was taken in the written statement number any issue was raised before the trial Court by the Municipal Council.
2997/C.R.129/32/Bhopal, dated 27th July, 1978 provides certain relaxations regarding the mode of payment of the amount required to be deposited under original order dated 6 th July, 1978.
By order dated 21 st November, 2006 this Court opined that having regard to the fact that the State of M.P. did number prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court went wrong in holding that the suit was barred under Section 80, CPC.
Having heard learned companynsel on either side, we have also given our thoughtful companysideration to various Government of Madhya Pradesh Orders including the first and foremost Order on the issue in question viz.,
The institutions being totally secured, numberoutsider can enter the Company premises without prior permission.
2681/1677/32, dated 6 th July, 1978 for levying internal development charges.
In view thereof, in accordance with the prevailing rules, the externational development fee Rs.5/ per.
About Rs.5 lakhs per month is the electricity bill to maintain the streetlights and to run pump houses.
The case put forward on behalf of the appellant Municipal Council is that it is a statutory body providing various amenities and necessities to the general public residing in its area limits.
This Court, accordingly, set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for companysideration of the first appeals on merit.
Subsequently, the respondents were served with a numberice calling upon them to deposit external development charges Rs.5/ per sq.
The short question that arises for our companysideration in these appeals is whether the companytesting respondents herein, i.e. National Fertilizers Limited and Gas Authority of India Limited, are liable to pay external development charges to the appellant Municipal Council as per its demand?
V. RAMANA, J. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2018.02.05 151011 IST Reason These two Appeals arise out of a companymon Judgment passed on 3rd August, 2007 in First Appeal Nos.1 of 1996 and 175 of 1995, respectively, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.
