SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath Kesharwani, JJ.
Suresh Patidar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Indore Municipal Corporation Commissioner & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9706 of 2019 with Writ Petition No. 9792 of 2019 with Writ Petition No. 19410 of 2020 with Writ Petition No. 22218 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 22219 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 22220 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 22671 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 22672 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 22706 of 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri V.K. jain, senior advocate with ms. Vaishali jain, advocate. Shri S.C. Bagadia, Senior Advocate With Shri Rushil Shukla, Advocate, Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate With Shri Lokendra Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri Manoj Munshi, Advocate, Shri Manish Nair, Deputy Advocate General & Shri Manoj Munshi, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established is that the Corporation is bound to construct the road strictly as per the direction given by the court and the Master Plan, and widening decisions should be based on traffic assessment.

Headnote:

Widening Road - Indore City Master Plan - 23-A of the Nagar Tatha Gram Sudhar Adhiniyam, 1973 - 40 feet wide Road - 80 feet wide Road - Indore Development Plan 2021

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the widening of a road in Indore City. The State Government proposed an 80 feet wide road in the Master Plan, which was later reduced to 40 feet. The petitioners sought direction for the construction of the road as per the Master Plan.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the road should be widened to 40 feet first, and a decision on further widening to 80 feet should be based on traffic assessment. The court upheld the previous orders and directed the Indore Municipal Corporation to proceed with the widening work.

Issues: The main issue was the alignment and width of the road as per the Master Plan and the previous court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the road should be widened to 40 feet first, and further widening to 80 feet should be based on traffic assessment. The Corporation is bound to construct the road strictly as per the direction given by the court and the Master Plan.

Final Decision: The court directed the Indore Municipal Corporation to proceed and complete the widening work of the road to 40 feet from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road, maintaining the equilibrium and monitoring by the Director of Town & Country Planning.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Rusia, J. - Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, these matters are heard finally and are being decided by this common order.

2. This is the third round of litigation before this Court regarding the challenge to the widening work. The State Government published a draft Master Plan for Indore City, 1991 in which 80 feet wide link Road was proposed from A.B. Road to Ring Road via and Saket Nagar (in short- 'the Road'). The 80 feet wide Road from A.B. Road to the house of Jankilal Bhaiya had already been constructed. Thereafter, Indore Master Plan, 2021 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2008 in which the width of the road has been reduced to 40 feet Since there was a delay in the construction of the second part of the 80 feet wide Road from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road by Indore Municipal Corporation, a Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation i.e. W.P. No.698 of 2002 (PIL) came to be filed before this Court. The petitioner being an association of residents of the locality alleged that the Indore Municipal Corporation and Town & Country Planning Department are not constructing 80 feet wide Road in their locality connecting the existing A.B. Road with the Ring Road. It was further alleged that at the instance of the private respondent, the State Government vide orders dated 12.07.2002 and 09.03.2020, reduced the width of the said Road from 80 to 40 feet Accordingly, it was prayed that the respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Corporation be directed not to change the alignment and 80 feet width of the Road 02. The writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the Road should first be widened up to 40 feet and within a period of six months after the Road is widened, the authority should decide based on traffic during the peak hour as to whether the road should be widened up to 80 feet if necessary by the acquisition of adjacent land and property. It has been further observed that since the map will have to be sanctioned by the Indore Municipal Corporation, it is the Indore Municipal Corporation which will determine as to how exactly 40 feet width of the land will be left from the centre of the Road by the respondents No.4 & 5.

3. The relevant paras are reproduced below:-

'15. We have perused the two communications dated 08.03.2000 and 20.04.2000 of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department to the Director, Town and Country Planning Department all other communications of the authorities of the Town and Country Planning Department on the subject on which reliance has been placed by the respondents No.1 and 4 and in the said communications though relevant factors have been mentioned while fixing the width of the road 40 feet, the most relevant factor namely the existing traffic and the traffic in future on the said road connecting Anand Bazar area with Ring Road does not find mention. We have held that the traffic requirement of an area including the road or street or means of access would be of paramount relevance while deciding as to what should be the width of the road or street or means of access. But since the existing width of road is less than 40 feet, it will not be possible for the authority now to decide as to whether a road of the width of 40 feet will be able to take care of the moving traffic of the area in question. It is only after the road is widened to 40 feet and the traffic in the area moves on such road of 40 feet width that the authorities will be able to assess as to whether the road requires to be widened up to 80 feet or not. For this reasons we of the considered opinion that as per the impugned decision in Annexure P/4 the road should be first widened up to 40 feet and within a period of six months after the road is so widened authorities should take decision on the basis of the traffic during the peak hours as to whether the road should be widened up to 8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top