The main legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation to prevent unauthorized construction, remove unauthorized structures, and preserve and protect the Siddique Hasan Tank, while addressing the process for regularization of unauthorized structures.

A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties. All the interlocutory applications filed in the respective petitions can be disposed of together by this common order. Writ Petition No. 6145/2002 was filed as Public Interest Litigation praying for direction against the respondents to remove encroachments and restore the natural beauty of Siddique Hasan Tank in public interest. While considering the said issue, this Court passed the following orders on 3.2.2005:

"By interim order dated 25.2.2003, this Court directed Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to check the encroachments in regard to Siddique Hassan Talab and take steps for removal of such encroachments immediately with the help of the police. Thereafter, several applications were filed by persons claiming to be the owners of portions of the land, which according to petitioner is a Talab.

In view of its further order was passed on 17.12.2003 directing that show cause notice should be issued where structures have been put up making it clear that fresh construction or fresh filing up of the tank should not be undertaken.

On 12.10.2004, it was stated by the Corporation that a plan would be prepared showing the water body in Siddique Hassan Tank, and the areas in regard to which title claimed under several decrees of the Civil Court, and the areas occupied by structures. In pursuance of it, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal has filed an affidavit dated 31.1.2005. It is stated in the affidavit that out of the total area of 11.99 acres of Siddique Hassan Tank, an extent of 3.96 acres (approximately 4 acres) is covered by constructions, an area of 5.19 acres is covered by water and 2.835 acres is open reclaimed land. The Municipal Corporation has stated that it will take steps to restore the lake (Talab) to an extent of 8 acres and leave the remaining constructed area of four acres undisturbed in view of the Civil Court decrees, subject to further orders in this petition. It is alleged that there are about 200 persons claims to be owners of different portions of the four acres of constructed area. All of them are not before us. It is stated that the revenue records continue to show the entire extent of 11.99 acres as Talab, belonging to the Bhopal Municipal Corporation. The corporation has filed the sketch showing the water body, reclaimed area (by filing) and the area covered by construction. The Corporation should therefore take up the task of identifying the area which should be preserved as tank protected by constructing a Bund or fence and also identify the different bits of land in the four acres of the Talab, which has already been converted into houses. This exercise is necessary so that further encroachment could be prevented and at the same time, the rights of the persons who have obtained decrees is safe guarded.

Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that though development of the Talab area may take some time, steps will be taken to protect the Talab (excluding the constructed area) by constructing a bund or fence.

Three months time is given to the Municipal Corporation to submit its further report. List after three months."

(emphasis supplied)

2. The Court recorded the assurance given by the Municipal Corporation that it will restore the Lake (Talab) to the extent of eight acres and leave the remaining constructed area of four acres undisturbed in view of the Civil Court decree subject to further orders passed in this petition.

3. Successive orders have been passed by this Court thereafter, in furtherance of the aforesaid order. It may be useful to reproduce the order dated 30.1.2009 where the Division Bench reiterated the fact that the site in question will have to be preserved and protected from encroachments and must be developed and maintained by the Authorities. The said order reads thus:

"We have heard Mr. A.P. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jaideep Singh, learned Dy. G.A. for the respondents 1 & 3 and Mr. Ajay Mishr