Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 33811
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA, J
Vijay Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
Indore Municipal Corporation – Respondent
WP 27013/2023
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Municipal Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court cannot issue directions for matters that are not statutory remedies available to the petitioner - The appropriate remedy lies in the statutory provisions of the Act. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleges illegal construction by the respondent on MOS area contrary to the sanctioned map and seeks demolition, along with a direction for the pending representation to be decided.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the issue of illegal construction is a disputed question of fact and the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the illegal construction could be resolved in a writ petition and the availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that illegal construction is a disputed question of fact not suitable for resolution in a writ petition and emphasized the necessity of following statutory remedies as provided in the Act.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
,Amol Shrivastava
01. The petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that the respondent No.3 has raised the illegal construction on MOS area contrary to the sanction map, therefore, the Municipal Corporation Indore be directed to demolish the illegal construction raised by the respondent No.3. (VIVEK RUSIA)
02. The petitioner has submitted the representation to the Commissioner but the same has not been decided till date, therefore, the petitioner is also seeking direction to the respondent to decide the pending representation.
03. In the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1956") there is a specific provision by way of Section 307(5) whereby any person who is aggrieved by the illegal construction can approach the District Court to challenge the same. Sub-Section (5) of Section 307 of Act of 1956 is reproduced below:
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect then right of the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provision of this Act or the byelaws made thereunder, but if the building is one in respect of which plans have been deposited and the plan s have been passed by the Commissioner, or notice that they have been rejected has not been given within the prescribed period after the deposit thereof, and if the work has been executed in accordance with the plans, the District Court on granting and injunction shall have power to order the Commissioner to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the District Court thinks just, but before making any such order the District Court cause the Commissioner if not a party to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
04. Illegal construction is always a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition. Even otherwise, the direction to the respondents to decide representation cannot be issued because that is not a statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, only remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956.
05. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforesaid remedy if so advised, in accordance with law.
