1. This petition and the petitions bearing W.P. No. 467/97 (Nagendra Tiwari & ors. v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 440/97 (Sanjeev Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 462/97 (Pradeep Kumar Naik v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No.465/97 (Sunderlal Kasarwani v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 561/97 (Govind Prasad Sahu v. State of M.P. & ors.) W.P. No. 767/97 (R.S. Agrawal v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 784/97 (Smt. Rampyari bai v. State of M.P. & ors.). W.P. No. 768/97 (V.M. Punsule & ors. v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 789/97 (Nirajan Prasad Sahu v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 793/97 (Kripa Chand Sahu v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 794/97 (Ramcharan Sahu & another v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 795/97 (Gulab Chand Sahu v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 797/97 (Purshottam Anant Paranjpe & ors. v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 798/97 (Dr. Surendra Bahre & another v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 803/97 (Indra Kumar Rai v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 811/97 (Rajkwnar Budhrani v. State of M.P. & ors.), W.P. No. 716/97 (Laskhanlal Piper Sonia & anr. v. State of M.P. & ors.), have been filed against the drive of the respondents to remove encroachments from the city especially in the area contiguous to the national highway No, 7. Since these petitions proceed on identical facts and grounds, they are being decided by this common order. However for the purpose of this' decision, the facts and grounds referred to in W.P. No. 330/97 are being taken into consideration. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that even though the construction of the petitioners is on private land and is neither an encroachment nor against any provision of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the respondents in their zeal to appease their superior officers and political bosses, in a team of local administration and the personnel of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation under-took to clear the area along the National Highway No.7 to widen the said road on the ground that the same had been encroached by construction effected on the two sides of the road. In the said drive against encroachment the front portion of the house of the petitioners in W.P. No. 330/97 containing three shops was demolished while in W.P. No. 467/97. the boundary wall was demolished. The respondents could not succeed in demolishing other constructions as the petitioners in the other petitions rushed the Court and orders restraining the respondents was passed. The case of the petitioners is that the construction was in accordance with the law and by--laws of the Municipal Corporation and the plans duly sanctioned by it but still without any previous notice or intimation, the respondents suddenly came along-with large contingent and demolished the same despite protest of the petitioners that the constriction could not have been demolished; the same having been duly sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions has relied upon the sanctioned plan of which the copies have been placed on record as Annexure-All & A/2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to the certificate issued by the Patwari (Annexure-B/1) by which it was stated that as per the road map, the width of the road in front of the house was 80 feet and the learned counsel has, on the strength of this certificate, contended that is prima facie established that there was no encroachment causing any obstruction of the road. Learned counsel has further referred to order dt.4.12.1997 (Annexure-C) passed in W.P. No. 3994/1995 (Pradeep Kumar & ors. v. Municipal Corporation & ors.) by which in an earlier petition, the respondents were restrained from demolishing any house, building or other construction which did not constitute encroachment on any public street or project over any such area. Reference has also been made to similar orders Annexures-C, D & E and photograph has also been placed on record to show the extent of demolition.