AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order,
they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 5501/2020 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the notice dated 30/1/2020 issued by the Building Officer, Indore
Municipal Corporation, Indore as well as the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 25/2/2020.
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of house situated at 86, Kailash Marg, Panchkuiyan Road, Indore and the same was
purchased through a registered sale deed. Petitioner has further stated that a notice was issued on 30/1/2020 informing the petitioner that the width of
the road is 24 meter as per the Master Plan and the petitioner has to remove the structure.
The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply in the matter on 6/2/2020 and thereafter the respondents have rejected the petitioners representation and
have passed a speaking order on 25/2/2020. The contention of the petitioner is that his house is situated at Kailash Marg and the width of Kailash
Marg is 18 meters, whereas, the respondents by treating the house of the petitioner at Panchkuiyan Road, Indore are proceeding ahead with the
demolition.
A reply has been filed by the respondent Corporation in the matter. Rejoinder has been filed and the additional reply has also been filed in the matter.
Undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 30/1/2020 and after taking into account all the grounds raised by
the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. The record produced before this Court ie., the relevant extracts of Indore Development Plan of
2020 establishes that the width of Panchkuiyan Road is 24 meters. Kailash Marg is towards east of Antim Square, whereas, Panchkuiyan Road, is
towards west of Antim Square. The proposed width of Kailash marg is 18 meters and the proposed width of Panchkuiyan Road, is 24 meters. The
map and the master plan makes it very clear that the petitioner's house is at Panchkuiyan Road and the width of the road is 24 meters. The
respondents are widening the road keeping in view the congestion of traffic, as road in front of the petitioner has become bottleneck resulting into
large number of accidents and keeping in view the growth of population and the master plan framed on the subject ie., Indore Development Plan 2021
and the respondents have rightly issued the notice and have passed the impugned order.
Hon'ble the apex Court while dealing with a case of widening of road, ie., in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare Vs. Indore Municipal
Corporation reported in (2017) 1 SCC 667 in paragraphs 20 to 24 has held as under :
Section 25 of the Act of 1973 lays down that once Development Plan comes into force the use and development of land shall conform to the provisions of the
development plan. It was also provided in section 25(2) that diversion of land shall be subject to the provisions of the Act of 1973. Section 25 is extracted below:
“25. Conformity with development plan â€" (1) After the coming into force of the development plan, the use and development of land shall conform to the
provisions of the development plan:
Provided that the Director may, at its discretion, permit the continued use of land for the purpose for which it was being used at the time of the coming into operation
of the development plan:
Provided further that such permission shall not be granted for a period exceeding seven years from the date of coming into operation of the development plan.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959) every permission to divert land granted
under that section shall be subject to the provisions of this Act.†(emphasis added)
It is apparent that the development plan once prepared is binding upon the development authorities in the planning area as well as on the MunicipalCorporation
and other local authorities as the case may be. They cannot modify and permit the user in contravention thereof. In other words, restriction is imposed upon the
owners on enjoyment of the property in violation of the development plan/regional plan, as the case may be.
Section 49 of the Act of 1973 deals with the town development schemes. Same has to be prepared under the umbrella of the regional plan and development plan.
The town development scheme is prepared by the Town & Country Development Authority established under the provisions of section 38. The same shall be a body
corporate under the provisions of section 39 and its constitution is provided in section 40. Section 49 of the Act of 1973 is extracted hereunder :
“49. Town Development Schemes.- A town development scheme may make provision for any of the following matters,
(i) acquisition, development and sale or leasing of land for the purpose of town expansion;
(ii) acquisition, relaying out of, rebuilding, or relocating areas which have been badly laid out or which has developed or degenerated into a slum;
(iii) acquisition and development of land for public purposes such as housing development, development of shopping centers, cultural centers, administrative
centers;
(iv) acquisition and development of areas for commercial and industrial purposes;
(v) undertaking of such building or construction work as may be necessary to provide housing, shopping, commercial or other facilities;
(vi) acquisition of land and its development for the purpose of laying out or remodeling of road and street patterns;
(vii) acquisition and development of land for playgrounds, parks, recreation centres and stadium;
(viii) reconstruction of plots for the purpose of buildings, roads, drains, sewage lines and other similar amenities;
(ix) any other work of a nature such as would bring about environmental improvements which may be taken up by the authority with the prior approval of the State
Government.â€
Section 50 of the Act of 1973 provides for method of preparation of town development schemes. The town development scheme may deal with the town
expansion, badly laid out areas or slums, acquisition and development of land for housing, shopping centres, cultural centres, administrative centres, commercial and
industrial purposes, remodelling of road and street patterns, reconstruction of lands for building roads, drains etc. Under section 50 draft plan has to be published,
objections have to be invited, heard and decided. Thereafter scheme is finalized, same has to be published in the Gazette. Section 55 provides that the land needed for
town development scheme shall be deemed to be a land required for public purpose within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act. Section 56 deals with acquisition of
land for Town and Country Development Authority. Within 3 years of preparation of town development scheme under section 50, the authority may acquire the land
by agreement and in case that is not possible the State Government at the request of the authority may proceed to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act.The town development scheme has to be executed by the authority within 3 years by acquiring the land in case it is necessary as per the provisions
contained in section 56.
It is apparent from the provisions contained in the Act of 1973 the three different provisions for preparation of regional plan, development plan (master plan) and
town development scheme. The regional plan is prepared by the State Government. Development plan is prepared as per the provisions contained in Chapter IV,
sections 13 to 19 and once development plan has been finalized, it is binding on development authorities as well as the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council and
other local authorities functioning in the planning area. Town development scheme can be framed by the development authorities and it may declare its intention to
do so with the prior approval of the State Government.
In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents are certainly justified in widening the road and the road on which the house of the petitioner is in
existence, is having a width of 24 meters. It is not an isolated case of the petitioner. Notices have been issued to all those persons whose structures
are coming in way of the widening of the road. It is not a case where the petitioner has been singled out by the respondent Corporation and, therefore,
keeping in view the larger public interest and the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare
(supra), the question of interference in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise.
Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
In the other connected matter ie., W.P.No. 5500/2020, the facts are identical and the only difference is that there is no sanction map also in respect of
the structure in question. Otherwise also this Court has already permitted the respondents to widen the road and no case for interference is made out
in the matter keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare (supra).
Accordingly, W.P.No. 5500/2020 is also dismissed.
This order be retained in W.P.No. 5501/2020 and a copy be placed in the record of the connected Writ Petition ie., W.P.No. 5500/2020.
Â