Kurban Hussain vs Indore Municipal Corporation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(MP) 363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
P. K. Jaiswal and S. K. Awasthi, JJ.
Kurban Hussain and others v. Indore Municipal Corporation and anothers
Writ Petitions No. 23497 of 2017, 8776 of 2018, 2246 of 2018, 1972
of 2018, 1973 of 2018, 3031 of 2018 and 4524 of 2018 (Indore); Decided on 7.5.2018

Advocates:
A. M. Mathur with A. Dhanodkar for petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 23497/2017, 8776/2018, 1972/2018, 1973/2018, 4524/2018, V. Dalal for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2246/2018 and S. Pathak for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3031/2018; P. Kaurav with R. Tiwari for respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 23497/2017, with M. Munshi for respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 8776/2018, with Manoj Munshi for respondents in Writ Petition No. 2246/2018 and 1972/2017, with M. Munshi for respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1973/2018, with Rishi Tiwari for respondents No. 2 & 3 in Writ Petition No. 3031/2018, with M. Munshi for respondents No. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 4524/2018; Rohit Mangal, Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State in Writ Petitions No. 23497/2017, 8776/2018, for respondent No.1/State in Writ Petition No. 3031/2018.

Headnote:(1) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (M. P.) -- Ss. 14 and 17 -- Master Plan of Indore City, 2021 -- Chapter VI -- Reg. 6.3 -- Cl. (18) -- condition of sub-clause 18 of clause 6.3 applies only in case of proposed width of road and not in case of existing width of road -- on date of coming into operation of Master Plan 2021 w.e.f. 1.1.2008, minimum width of road in question was already 80' (24 ½ m) -- therefore, sub-clause (18) of clause 6.3 is not applicable. [Paras 14, 19 & 36
       (2) Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 (M. P.) -- R. 4 -- difference in English and Hindi versions -- English version is translation of Hindi version -- Hindi being official language of State of Madhya Pradesh -- Hindi version shall prevail upon English version. 2015(3) JLJ 326 (FB) and 1983 JLJ 385 = 1983 RN 205 (FB) relied on. [Para 29
       (3) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M. P.) - Ss. 305 and 307 -- M. P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 -- R. 4 -- M .P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 -- Ss. 17 and 19(5) -- Master Plan of Indore City, 2021
       -- Chapter VI - Reg. 6.3 -- Cl. (18) -- authority to remove any construction or part of construction which is illegal or constructed without proper permission -- provisions of R. 4 have no applicability in case of illegal construction or construction in violation of building permission -- power conferred under substantive law cannot be modified or diluted by executive orders or rules.
       Held : The Master Plan or Indore Development Plan, 2021 sanctioned under section 19 (5) is an executive exercise whereas section 305 being substantive law is creature of legislation. It is well settled principle of law that any law promulgated by the legislature cannot be diluted or withdrawn or modified by any executive act. The Supreme Court in case of Ravi Ramchandra Waghmare (supra), has upheld the validity of section 305 of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the Development Plan cannot override the provisions of section 305 which have been promulgated by the legislature. Therefore, under any circumstances, the substantive law shall prevail over subordinate rules and regulations including Master Plan. (2017)1 SCC 667 and SLP No. 70 of 2018 followed.
       (4) Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 (M. P.) -- R. 13 -- is basically a saving clause -- saves development/building permission issued prior to these Rules -- building permission granted prior to coming into force of these Rules -- shall be valid and effective. [Para 33
       (5) Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 (M. P.) -- R. 4 r/w R. 13 -- existing building constructed in accordance to any permission granted prior to coming into force of these Rules -- shall not be demolished unless hazardous to safety of adjacent property or to safety of occupants of building. [Para 34
       (6) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M. P.) -- S. 66 (1) (y) -- M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 -- S.13 (3) -- both mandate Corporation to follow and abide by Town Development Plans prepared under Adhiniyam, 1973. [Para 39
       (7) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M. P.) -- S.305 -- there is automatic vesting of any land or building falling within set back area. (2017)1 SCC 667 followed. [Para 42
        ¼1½ uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vf/kfu;e] 1973 && /kkjk 14 rFkk 17 ^^ ekLVj Iyku bankSj flVh] 2021 && v/;k; 6 && fofu- 6-3 [kaM ¼18½ && [kaM 6-3 ds mi[kaM 18 dh 'krZ dsoy ekxZ dh izLrkfor pkSM+kbZ ds ekeys esa ykxw gksrh gS] fo|eku ekxZ dh pkSM+kbZ ds ekeys esa ugha && 1-1-2008 ls izHkko'khy ekLVj Iyku 2021 ds izorZu ds fnukad dks iz'uk/khu ekxZ dh U;wure pkSM+kbZ igys gh 80*¼24½eh-½ Fkh && vr%] [kaM 6-3 dk mi[kaM ¼18½ ykxw ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 14]19 ,ao 36

       ¼2½ Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 2012 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 4 && vaxzsth rFkk fganh ikBksa esa varj && vaxzsth ikB fganh ikB dk vuqokn gS && fganh e/; izns'k jkT; dh jktHkk"kk gksus ds dkj.k && fganh ikB vaxszth ikB ij vfHkHkkoh gksxkaA 2015¼3½ ts ,y ts 326 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 1983 ts ,y ts 385 ¾ 1983 jkfu 205 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 29

       ¼3½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 305 rFkk 307

       && e-iz- Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 2012 && fu- 4 && e-iz- uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vfèkfu;e] 1973 && /kkjk 17 rFkk 19¼5½ && ekLVj Iyku bankSj flVh] 2012 && vè;k; 6 && fofu- 6-3 && [kaM ¼18½ && fdlh fuekZ.k vFkok fuekZ.k ds ,sls Hkkx dks tks voS/k gS vFkok mfpr vuqKk ds fcuk fufeZr gS] gVkus dk izkf/kdkj && voS/k fuekZ.k vFkok Hkou vuqKk ds vfrØe.k esa fuekZ.k ds ekeys esa fu-4 ds mica/k ykxw ugha gksrs

       && ekSfyd fof/k ds v/khu iznÙk 'kfä dk;Zikyd vkns'kksa vFkok fu;eksa }kjk mikarfjr ;k y?kq ugha dh tk ldrhA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 19¼5½ ds v/khu eatwj ekLVj Iyku vFkok bankSj fodkl ;kstuk] 2021 dk;Zikyd dk;Z gS tcfd /kkjk 305 ekSfyd fof/k gkssus ds dkj.k foèkku dh l`f"V gSA ;g fof/k dk lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd fo/kkueaMy }kjk iz[;kfir fdlh Hkh fof/k dks fdlh dk;Zikyd ÑR; }kjk y?kq ;k izR;kg`r ;k mikarfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA mPpre U;k;ky; us jfo jkepanz ok?kekjs ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 305 dh fof/kekU;rk iq"V dh gSA vr%] fodkl ;kstuk /kkjk 305 ds mica/kksa ij] tks fo/kku eaMy }kjk iz[;kfr fd, x, gSa] v/;kjksgh ugha gks ldrhA vr%] fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa] ekSfyd fof/k v/khuLFk fu;eksa vkSj fofu;eksa ij] ftuesa ekLVj Iyku lfEefyr gS] vfHkHkkoh gksxhA ¼2017½1 ,l lh lh 667 rFkk fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk Ø- 70 lu~ 2018 vuqlfjrA

       ¼4½ Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 2012 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-13 && ewyr% O;ko`fÙk [kaM gS

       && bu fu;eksa ls iwoZ tkjh fodkl@Hkou vuqKk O;ko`Ùk djrk gS && bu fu;eksa ds izo`Ùk gksus ds iwoZ iznku dh xbZ Hkou vuqKk && fof/kekU; vkSj izHkkoh gksxhA ¼iSjk 33

       ¼5½ Hkwfe fodkl fu;e 2012 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 4 lgifBr fu- 13 && bu fu;eksa ds izo`Ùk gksus ds iwoZ iznku dh xbZ fdlh vuqKk ds vuqlkj fufeZr fo|eku Hkou && rksM+k ugha tk,xk tc rd fd ik'oZLFk laifÙk dh lqj{kk vFkok Hkou ds vfèkHkksfx;ksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, ifjladVe; ugha gksA ¼iSjk 34

       ¼6½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 66¼1½¼e½ && e-iz- uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vf/kfu;e] 1973 && /kkjk 13¼3½ && nksuksa esa fuxe dks vfèkfu;e] 1973 ds v/khu rS;kj dh xbZ uxj fodkl ;kstukvksa dk vuqlj.k vkSj ikyu djus dh vkKk nh xbZ gSA ¼iSjk 39

       ¼7½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 305 && ihNs gVk, tkus okys {ks= esa vkus okyh dksbZ Hkh Hkwfe vFkok bekjr Loeso fufgr gks tkrh gSA ¼2017½1 ,l lh lh 667 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 42

ORDER

Jaiswal, J. -- 1. Since a common question of law is involved in these petitions to decide therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from Writ Petition No. 8776/2018.

2. This is the fourth round of litigation.

3. The issue involved in these batch of Writ Petitions No. 23497/2017, 1972/2018, 1973/2018, 4524/2018 and 3031/2018, is almost settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation, reported as (2017)1 SCC 667 . After the judgment in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation (supra), the Indore Municipal Corporation had undertaken a plan for widening of one of the major city road to connect two major bus terminals and a Railway station known as ‘Sarvate Bus Stand to Gangwal Bus Stand Road’, which passes through the area of the petitioners. After order dated 21.12.2017, passed by the Division Bench, a Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2017 and other connected writ petitions were filed on the ground that the petitioners are the resident of Kadav Ghat, Main Road, Street No. 2 and the aforesaid road on which the petitioners are residing connects with the road known as ‘Machi Bazar’ and width of the Machi Bazar in the Master Plan is 18 mtrs. and on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2164 of 2017 (Mohd. Harun and others v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 21.12.2017, they are free to demolish the building as per Master Plan, 2021. It was also submitted that in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No. 2164 of 2017 the Kadaav Ghat, Street No. 02 was not in issue and the prayer made therein was not to implement Master Plan, 2021.

4. According to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2017,, the Municipal Corporation in the garb of the order passed on 21.12.2017, are bent upon to demolish their houses situated in Street No. 02, which is 18 meters wide, the learned writ Court directed the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2017 to furnish an advance copy to the learned standing counsel of the Municipal Corporation, Indore and till the next date of hearing, no coercive action shall be taken against them. On the next date, when the matter was listed, it was pointed out by the Indore Municipal Corporation that petitioners No. 2, 3 and 6 were writ petitioners in those two writ petition (Writ Petitions No. 2164 of 2017 and 3985 of 2017). As per the Master Plan, 2021, itself the Municipal Authorities are carrying out the work of road widening from ‘Sarvate Bus Stand to Gangwal Bus Stand’ and the Division Bench has taken note of the alignment of the road and the Municipal Corporation prayed for vacating the adinterim relief granted on 26.12.2017. As the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, it was directed to the Office to examine the case and list before the appropriate Bench. On 4.1.2018, the matter was listed before the Division Bench and it was pointed out that against the order dated 21.12.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 2164 of 2017 and Writ Petition No. 3985 of 2017, Special Leave Petition have been filed and a prayer was made to defer the hearing till the matter is decided by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Considering the aforesaid, hearing in Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2017 and other connected matters were adjourned sine die for hearing to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and liberty was granted to the parties to seek hearing of the petition after decision of the proceedings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On 12.4.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP (C) No(s).70/2018. Order dated 12.4.2018 reads as under :

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

We do not find any ground to inter