Court stay comes too late
THE ARMY authorities recently took possession of Bungalow no 44 situated on Mall Road after the court rejected the plea of the leaseholder and declared resumption by the Army as legal.india Updated: May 10, 2006 14:13 IST
THE ARMY authorities recently took possession of Bungalow no 44 situated on Mall Road after the court rejected the plea of the leaseholder and declared resumption by the Army as legal.
However, the owner of the bungalow Manukanta Jindal pleaded in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Class I Sadhna Maheshwari for a stay, which was issued on Saturday afternoon. But the stay order could not be served on the Army officials as its offices close by 2 pm.
And by the time the stay order could be served on Monday, the Army had taken possession of a school and other parts of the bungalow, which is spread over 5.7 acres. Only the areas occupied by the tenants and a temple was not taken possession of by the Army.
Army team had reached the Bungalow on Saturday at around 5 pm and directed the tenants to vacate the premises. Subsequently, on the request of the tenants, the Army authorities agreed to give them time on humanitarian grounds.
Later on, a large part of the bungalow, including the school, was taken over by the Army. Mhow Administrative Commandant Sudhendra Singh and Mhow SDM John Kingsley and police staff also accompanied the Army team.
Talking to mediapersons, Mhow Station Commander Brigadier S S Jog said that resumption process of the Bungalow was carried out following the court order passed by the Additional District Judge II of Mhow court. He further said that the Civil Judge of Mhow had passed the order in civil suit No 638A/95 in favour of the Army and further the Additional District Judge of Mhow had also dismissed the appeal against the said suit.
Also, before taking possession of the said bungalow, the Army authorities sought opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India Vinay Jhelawat who also advised to go ahead with the action. Brig Jog further said that the temple of Lord Ganesh constructed on the premises would not be touched and devotees would be allowed unhindered movement.
Jindal family’s advocate Jai Prakash Maharshi said that the Defence Ministry had issued the resumption notice in 1990 and sent a cheque of Rs 19,400 as compensation. But, Manukanta Jindal, terming the notice as illegal, filed a petition in the Mhow court.
The Mhow lower court dismissed Jindal’s case and they filed a revision application in the same court, which was also dismissed on April 27, 2006. Now after having got a stay, they plan to move the High Court, Maharshi said.
He also admitted that even if the Jindals were illegal occupants of the bungalow action should be taken under the Public Premises Act 1971 of the Cantonment Board and not the way the Army did.
First Published: May 10, 2006 14:13 IST