[Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009] No Bar On Directly Approaching Civil Court Without Availing Remedy Under The Act: Rajasthan High Court

A bench of Justice Birendra Kumar at the Rajasthan High Court (“the Court”) dismissed a revision petition filed against an order of a trial court wherein the trial court refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

The petition was filed on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”) but the Court decided the case observing that there was no specific bar on the jurisdiction of civil court under the Act.

Factual Background

A suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in this matter and Municipal Corporation, Bikaner in relation to a construction by the petitioner. It was argued that due to the construction of the multistory building adjacent to respondent's house, she was restrained from opening her window and hence, the construction made towards her house was sought to be removed.

It was argued by the petitioner's counsel that the respondent should have availed the statutory remedy under the Act before approaching the civil court. It was further argued that the statutory remedy also provided for appeal in case of aggrievement towards the order of the competent authority. To support these arguments, the counsel relied on two cases.

HC observations

The Court distinguished the 2 cases that were used by the counsel for the petitioner to support his case. Firstly, the Court said that in one of the cases the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) in light of Section 99 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (“JDA Act”). Section 99 specifically barred the cognizance by a civil court before availing the remedy under the JDA Act.

However, the Court highlighted that there existed no such bar under the Act on the jurisdiction of the civil court. Secondly, in another case, the Supreme Court was considering the issue of alternative remedy before approaching the writ court. It held that the party aggrieved by the construction should have approached the municipal authorities. If no proper response was received from the authorities, then the civil court was the appropriate forum to be approached.

In this background, the Court stated that since municipality was already a party to the petition, it would have the opportunity to file written statement to elaborate on the action taken on the grievance of the petitioner. The Court again highlighted existence of no bar under the Act on directly approaching the civil court in case of grievance. Hence, the revision petition was dismissed.

Title: Neeta Kapoor v Gayatri Devi and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

Click Here To Read/Download Order