1. Heard on I.A. No.9668/2016; whereby, petitioner intends to challenge the validity of order-dated 20.2.2014 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Katni in purported exercise of power under sub-section (1) of section 30 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the said application with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under section 31 of 1973 Adhiniyam.

3. The I.A. stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought.

4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

5. Petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 8.2.2016 and notice dated 9.10.2015 issued earlier for removal of unauthorized construction.

6. Petitioner No.1 is a colonizer. With an intention to raise construction of row houses over the land bearing Khasra No.1368/1 at Gopal Nagar, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward, Katni, petitioner applied for permission under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Permission was granted vide Order No.498 dated 30.12.2003 for construction over 44000 sq. Ft. with 10% i.e. 4000 sq. ft. open space, earmarked for garden in the map sanctioned. The petitioner under the garb that he has been orally permitted, raised construction over this open space of 4000 sq. ft. Later on, realizing that unauthorized construction has been raised, petitioner approached the Authorities of Municipal Corporation for compounding. Petitioner also moved the Court by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No.21294/2015. As in the meantime, the petitioner and one Param Jeet Kaur has been subjected to notice on 9.10.2015 and 16.10.2015 to remove the unauthorized construction.

7. The petition was disposed of on 11.1.2016 in the following terms :

“Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Katni to consider and decide the application preferred by the petitioner under section 308-A of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to state, the said authority shall pass a speaking order. However, in the authority shall pass a speaking order. However, in the facts of the case, it is directed that till the application preferred by the petitioner is decided, no action for demolition of the construction raised by the petitioner shall be taken. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”

8. It is in pursuance to the directions that the respondent authority has passed the impugned order. The authority concerned after taking into consideration the entire facts on record, declined to accede to the claim of the petitioner for compounding, holding :-

**mDr nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr izfrosnu ,oa fyf[kr i{k leFkZu dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar ;g ik;k x;k fd dkyksukbZtj }kjk xzke f[kjguh esa [kljk cankscLr 407 i-g-u- esa fLFkr [kljk Øa-1368@1 jdok 0-368 gs- ij o"kZ 2003 esa vuqKk iznku dh xbZ Fkh] mijksDr vuqKk ds ekufp= esa 4400 oxZQqV Hkwfe ikdZ ds fy, NksMh x;h Fkh] dkyksukbZtj }kjk mDr Hkwfe ij tkjh dh xbZ vuqKk ds foijhr pkj Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k dk;Z voS/k :i ls fd;k x;k gSA

iz'uk/khu LFky ij Lohd`r vfHkU;kl 4400 oxZQqV ikdZ ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe ij la;qDr lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k] dVuh }kjk Lohd`r vfHkU;kl esa euethZ ls Qsjcny dj fy;k x;k] tks fd e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 308 ¼d½ ds vuqlkj iz'keu ;ksX; ugha gSA

izdj.k esa dkyksukbZtj dks e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 292 ,oa blds varxZr cuk, x, dkyksukbZtj varxZr dkyksuh esa fodkl dk;Z ,oa Hkou fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ Fkh] ;g Lohd`fr uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k ds Lohd`r vfHkU;kl ds varxZr FkhA

dkyksukbZtj Jh uhys'k pkSngk }kjk vfHkU;kl esa ikdZ ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe ij Hkou fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS tks e-iz- u