1. Both these petitions have been filed being aggrieved by the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, Indore for removing the encroachment/illegal construction over the Government land. The notices in both the cases were issued under section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012. Since the notices are challenged in both these petitions on similar grounds, therefore, both the cases are disposed of by a common order.

2. Petitioners are claiming ownership of the land by virtue of registered sale deed. According to the petitioner they are in possession and constructed boundary wall and temporary shed and they are paying property tax and other taxes to the Municipal Corporation. They are having electricity connection and telephone connections. Undisputedly both the petitioners are running the business of selling of marbles and tiles over these plots. Respondent/Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Indore issued notice dated 13.02.2015 alleging that they have constructed boundary wall over the Government land bearing Survey No.30 followed by another notice of the same date and they are running a marble shop by putting a tin shed. They have been directed to appear before the Building Officer along with documents to explain why the illegal construction be not removed. After notice respondent filed reply raising preliminary objection that the petition is pre-mature as only show cause notice was issued and the petitioners are required to appear before the Building Officer to demonstrate their rights. It is stated that respondents are not trying to demolish the construction without passing order on a show cause notice and that too after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The construction of shed and boundary wall comes under the definition of the building as provided under section 5 of the Municipal Corporation Act which has admittedly been constructed by the petitioners. Since the construction is without permission and the same is prohibited under section 293 of the Municipal Corporation Act, the Municipal Corporation is free to demolish the same.

3. That the petitioners filed rejoinder and submitted that under rule 12(k) of the Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 for construction of a temporary shed no permission is required. That under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act the notice is required to be issued by the Commissioner only and the Building Officer has no authority to issue the impugned notice. It is denied that impugned notices are show cause notices because till today no final order has been passed by the Municipal Corporation.

4. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Adhiniyam of 1973') provides for constitution of planning area by way of notification by the State Government and once the planning area is notified as per sub-section (3), the Municipal Corporation cease to exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties which the State Government or the Director is competent to exercise, perform and discharge under the Act, therefore, the Municipal Corporation has no right to issue the show cause notice to the petitioner. He further submits that there is a temporary shed over the plot owned by the petitioners and under rule 12(k) of the Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 permission is not required for construction of sheds on any land. He further submits that the Building Officer is not competent under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act to issue notice and only Commissioner is competent to issue the notice and the only action which can be taken against the petitioner is under section 36 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 for which one month's notice is required to be issued by the Director, therefore, the impugned notices are liable to be quashed having been issued without authority.

5. Per contra, Shri Rishi Tiwari, l