The main legal point established in the judgment is that compounding fees for unauthorized construction should be determined based on the actual area of unauthorized construction of the building and not on the total area of the land.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. This Intra Court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been directed against the order dated 31-7-2009 passed by Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3921 of 2007.

2. That the Respondent-Company, ITC Limited, had filed a writ petition challenging the Resolution No. 369, dated 23-5-2007 passed by the Appellant-Municipality and also the demand raised through letter dated 24-5-2007.

3. Briefly stated, the Respondent had purchased land ad-measuring 4.164 Hectares vide registered sale deed dated 5-7-2005 so as to establish a Farmers Facility Center and Godown at Village Padliya Kala, Tehsil Nagda, District Ujjain. After getting the land mutated in its name an order of diversion was passed by the Competent Authority giving permission to the Respondent Company to use the land for commercial use. Thereafter, the requisite plan for construction on the said land was submitted to the Town and Country Planning Department of the State Government. The said plan was approved by the Town and Country Planning Department. Thereafter the Respondent submitted an application seeking permission from the Appellant-Municipality for construction of building vide application dated 24-12-2005. However, before the permission could be granted, the Respondent treating to have been granted permission under deeming provision, raised construction on the said land. In the circumstances on account of raising of the said construction treating it to be without requisite permission, a demand was raised by the Appellant against the Respondents vide demand notice dated l-2-2006. The said demand was challenged by the Respondent Company by filing a Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 26-9-2006 with liberty to the Respondent herein (writ Petitioners of W.P. No. 1699 of 2006) to submit a detailed representation before the Appellant. The President-in-Council of the Appellant Municipality was directed to consider the same and was further directed to raise the demand in terms of Section 187A of the Municipalities Act and in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Collector for the year 2006-07. In the Writ Appeal No. 457 of 2006 filed by the Appellant, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27-2-2007 maintained the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. On the basis of the directions issued by the Writ Court, the Respondent-Company filed representation on 19-3-2007 indicating that out of the total land purchased by the Respondent Company, the total area of construction of the Farmers Facility Center and Godown is only 6557.46 square meters. Accordingly, the Respondent Company made a prayer that compounding charges may be determined keeping in view the rates of sale of land, as determined by the Collector of Stamps on the total area of construction. The said representation submitted by the Respondent Company was decided on 24-5-2007. The Appellant raised compounding charges at Rs. 40,69,073/-. The raising of the said demand was protested by the Respondent Company by filing yet another representation dated 12-6-2007. Since no decision was taken on the said representation, the Respondent Company filed W.P. No. 3921 of 2007. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 31-7-2009 allowed the said writ petition by quashing the resolution dated 23-5-2007 and the letter dated 24-5-2007 by which compounding charges of Rs. 40,69,073 has been demanded. The learned Single Judge further directed that the compounding fee shall be leviable for only the actual area of unauthorised construction raised by the Petitioner-Company. The leaned Single Judge directed the Appellant Municipality to pass a fresh assessment order after associating a representative of the Petitioner-Company in the matter. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

5. Shri C.L. Yadav,