The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and the emphasis on considering compounding before resorting to demolition in cases of illegal construction.

S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. :- This appeal assails the order dated 26-9-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. 1699/2006, whereby the learned single Judge has quashed the demand raised vide notice Ex. P.9 for development charge and in relation to the determination of compounding fee for illegal construction by the respondents petitioner, directions have been issued as under :-

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand raised by the respondents towards Development Charges, Annexure P-6 and compounding fee Annexure P/19 are quashed with the following directions :

1. That the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2, regarding the nature of land and the actual area of unauthorized construction within a week.

2. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall submit the same before President-in-Council, who shall consider the same in accordance with Section 187-A of the Act and also in accordance with the Guidelines issued by Collector for the year 2006-2007 and shall raise the demand accordingly.

3. The respondents shall pass a necessary order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of representation after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. The amount already deposited by petitioner in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court shall be adjusted by the respondents.

5. Since the letter of demand Annexure P/6 relating to Development Charges has been quashed, therefore, the bank guarantee deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court stands discharged.

6. It is made clear that if any further construction is raised, then the same shall be with the permission/sanction of the respondents."

2. The respondent-petitioner, with a view to establish a Farmer Facility Centre and Godown at village Padliya Kala, Tehsil Nagda, District Ujjain, purchased a piece of agricultural land admeasuring 4.164 Hect. It was alleged that after purchasing the land, the petitioner got its name mutated in the revenue record and also obtained the order of diversion from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagda for its commercial use. The site plan for the proposed Facility Centre and Godown was approved by the Town and Country Planing Department, Ujjain and thereafter the petitioner applied for building permission in the office of appellant vide application on 24-12-2005. The respondent-petitioner contends that since no objection was commuicated in respect of the plan submitted nor the plans were sanctioned within the period prescribed therefor, on assumption of its deemed permission the building was constructed. However, the appellant, treating the said building to be an illegal construction, proceeded to demand development charges vide Annexure P/9 inn the sum of Rs. 22,40,232 and rejected the representation of the petitioner. It was in these circumstances that the writ petition was filed challenging the demand Annexure P/9.

3. During the pendency of the petition an interim order was passed to the effect that upon depositing Rs. 11,00,000/- within a period of one week, the present appellant shall not interfere with the construction of the FFC as per the building plan submitted by them it was further directed that the remaining amount of the impugned demand shall be secured by the bank guarantee in favour of the appellant (respondents to the petition) which shall be kept alive during pendency of the writ petition.

4. The order was not assailed by the appellant but it was only after the writ petition was decided, the appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for appellant Shri C. L. Yadav, Senior Advocate, submits that the issue raised before the writ Court was only as regards the development charges demanded vide Annexure P/9 and the demand of compounding charges was not a subject-matter of the petition. In this connection, learned senior counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the