IMPORTANT POINT
The Municipal Corporation must evaluate building permissions based on prior property transactions and ownership rights while adhering to relevant regulations.

ORDER :

The petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of order dated 14.06.2022 whereby, the Indore Municipal Corporation has refused to grant building permission of Plot No.3 at Neelkanth Colony, Indore, admeasuring 1444 sq.ft. ("hereinafter referred to as "Plot No.3") on the ground that the subject plot is situated over the underground drainage.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner had purchased the aforesaid plot in an e-auction conducted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, a sale certificate dated 14.03.2022 was issued in favour of the petitioner. A registered sale deed dated 26.03.2022 conferred the title on the petitioner for which he incurred the expenses of Rs. 5,01,600/-.

2.2 The petitioner applied for permission to construct a house. The Indore Municipal Corporation has rejected the building permission on the ground that no construction is permissible within 9 meters of the plot because the drainage is passing below the plot of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of writ petition.

3. The Indore Municipal Corporation filed a return by submitting that the petitioner has an alternate remedy. It is also submitted that one Smt. Rajkumari Sharma has also filed W.P. No.6672/2020 seeking quashment of the order dated 27.12.2019 whereby she was also refused to grant permission to construct the fuel station on the subject plot on the same ground. According to the Indore Municipal Corporation, as per Chapter-VI of Indore Development Plan, 2021, both sides of the water body, whether river or drainage shall be kept open. As per Rule 50(b) of the Bhumi Vikas Rules, "construction of a building on the land which is within the distance of 9 meters from the highest water mark is not permissible". Therefore, no permission can be granted either to the petitioner or to Smt. Rajkumari.

4. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also filed the return by submitting that they conducted the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The answering respondents duly provided all the necessary information and documents to the petitioner before auction, and after being satisfied with all documents and necessary facts, the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings. Now the petitioner is estopped from raising any objection.

5. The petitioner filed the rejoinder and denied the aforesaid allegations by submitting that Plot No.3 is registered as a residential plot, which is evident from the search report; hence, he purchased bona fidely with an intention to construct a residential house. The auction proceedings are liable to be quashed and his money be returned back if he cannot get permission to construct the house.

6. During pendency of this petition, the petitioner was directed to implead Smt. Rajkumari as respondent No.5, who mortgaged this plot No.3 with respondents No.2 and 3 in order to get the financial assistance/ loan and in default of payment of the loan, respondents No.2 and 3 have sold the same to the petitioner.

7. After notice, the respondent No.3 filed the reply disclosing the fact that the Indore Municipal Corporation vide registered exchange deed No. A-1/4094 dated 23.08.1978 gave this Polt No.3 to the predecessor-in-title. The Indore Municipal Corporation clearly mentioned in the exchange deed that Plot No.3 has been created by filling of Nallah. Later on, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. allotted a license for a retail outlet to her son, but the Indore Municipal Corporation has declined to grant the permission.

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

8. The Respondents No.. 2 and 3, before taking the Plot No.3 on mortgage, obtained a Search Report from Shri Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate, whic