- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The extent of jurisdiction of the High Court to pass an order of demolition of property, ownership whereof is claimed by the appellant without giving him an opportunity of hearing is the question involved herein.
(3.) The said question arises in the following factual matrix : This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench, Gwalior in Writ Petition No. 5429 of 2006 directing the respondents for taking steps for dispossessing the petitioner from the disputed land; as also the order dated 28.09.2007 of the said Court dismissing the review petition being No. MCC 254 of 2007 filed for review of the said order dated 14.3.2007. The petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs. 9 lakhs from Respondent No. 8, namely, the State Bank of Indore, Sheopur for construction of a building*which was to be let out to the bank upon completion of construction. The Respondentbank had duly verified the title of the appellant by obtaining a search report through its panel lawyer Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jain. It furthermore obtained legal opinion from the aforesaid panel lawyer who certified in regard to his title vide letters dated 24.11.2005 and 7.04.2006. Once the property was ready upon construction, it was let out on rent by the petitioner and was duly furnished for use of the bank. Since it involved a substantial expenditure and also public money, it had serious apprehensions of being dispossessed when the writ petition (PIL) was entertained by the High Court. In the said writ proceedings, it was submitted by the respondentbank that it was ready to pay the rent either to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 or to the present petitioner not to both the parties. It was apprehended by the bank that if an order is passed by the High Court with regard to dispossession of the answering respondent, it would involve a huge loss pertaining to the furnishing and shifting of the premises besides loss of business due to shifting. In those circumstances, permission was sought by the bank to deposit the rent with the present appellant till liquidation of loan amount due to the bank and it was also submitted that the bank was ready and willing to deposit the amount of rent as per the direction of the Court by making an application for recall of the order dated 14.03.2007 in Writ Petition No. 5429 of 2006 (PIL). The High Court, however, dismissed the aforesaid application of the respondent bank. It was furthermore submitted by the petitioner that the High Court had dismissed the writ petition and the subsequent review petition merely on the basis of oral submissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner had not been served with a notice of the original writ petition as a result whereof, no reply could be filed. It was also submitted that the High Court relied upon a statement of the respondents wherein it was stated that earlier a,title suit had been filed by the petitioner which has already been decided in favour of the Nagar Palika and the same was affirmed by the High Court in FA No. 77 of 1998 against the petitioner. The High Court failed to consider that the said Civil Suit No. 1A of 1986 on which the Court had relied upon was filed by the petitioner in respect of a different property and. not fhe land in dispute in the present case.' A Civil Suit being No. 178A of 2006 is pending before the Civil Judge Class II, Sheopur with regard to the property involved in the present case in which the Nagar Palika, one of the parties in the instant appeal had filed a reply and written statement on 12.10.2006. In the said suit, the petitioners herein hat} obtained an injunction in their favour arid the same is in operation till the pendency of the suit. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the first respondent before the High Court praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs : "(i) That the concerned authorities may kindly be directed to take immediate possession of the property in question from respondent No. 7 and cancel the order of transfer in the records of Municipal Council, Sheopur. (ii) That the authorities may kindly be directed to take strict disciplinary and criminal action against the officers who have indulged in the illegal act causing loss to the Government as well as Municipal Council, Sheopur.v. (iii) That the loss which has been caused may kindly be ordered to be recovered from the officers and other persons who are liable for the same." The First Respondent contended that despite unsuccessful attempts on the part of the appellant to establish ownership over the land which, in fact, is vested in the respondent No. 6, Nagar Palika; the appellant in collusion with its officers, managed to see that it does not take steps for her eviction. In the said public interest litigation, the appellant was arrayed as respondent No. 7.;