Back
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At Indore
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
RESERVED ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 9706 of 2019
Between:-
1.
SURESH PATIDAR S/O SHRI CHUNNILAL JI , AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
187/4, TELEPHONE NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
HARINARAYAN PATIDAR S/O SHRI RAMGOPALJI ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURSIT 187/2, TELEPHONE NAGAR,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
SUBHASH PATIDAR S/O SHRI BHAGIRATHJI , AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
187/3, TELEPHONE NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4.
MOHANLAL PATIDAR S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA JI ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 187/5, TELEPHONE NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.
CHATURBHUJ PATIDAR S/O SHRI CHUNNILALJI ,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE KHASRA NO. 1300/2, TELEPHONE
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.K. JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS.
VAISHALI JAIN, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1.
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
COMMISSIONER
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT SHOPPING COMPLEX, AB ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 9792 of 2019
Between:-
1.
REKHA W/O C.S. BIJU VASUDEVAN , AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE H. NO. 2,
GULMOHAR RESIDENCY, 1324, 1325/2, KHAJRANA
NEAR PALIWAL NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
MANSI W/O SHRI SUDHIR KAPADNIS , AGED ABOUT
54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD H.NO. 6,
GULMOHAR RESIDENCY 1324 AND 1325/2,
KHAJRANA, NEAR PALIWAL NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
SUDHIR S/O SHRI KRISHNARAO KAPADNIS , AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE H.NO
6, GULMOHAR RESIDENCY 1324 AND 1325/2,
KHAJRANA , NEAR PALIWAL NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
YUSUF ALI S/O HAIDER ALI , AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS H. NO. 10,
GULMOHA RESIDENCY 1324 AND 1325/2, KHAJRANA
NEAR PALIWAL NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5.
VIRAJ NARANG S/O SHRI VINOD NARANG , AGED
3
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS H. NO.
14, GULMOHAR RESIDENCY, 1324 AND 1325/2,
KHAJRANA NEAR PALIWAL NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.K. JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS.
VAISHALI JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
COMMISSIONER
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
DEPARTMENT SHOPPING COMPLEX, AB ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 19410 of 2020
Between:-
1.
GHANSHYAMDAS SONI S/O MOTILAL SONI , AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED 178
TELEPHONE NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
SHRI RAM LAKHAN DWIVEDI S/O SHRI RAM SIYA
DWIVEDI , AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O: 179, TELEPHONE NAGAR , INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
SMT. MAMTA VED W/O PUKHRAJ VED , AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O: 180,
TELEPHONE NAGAR , INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
SHRI MANGILAL KULMI S/O SHRI DARYAY SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
R/O: 181, TELEPHONE NAGAR , INDORE (MADHYA
4
PRADESH)
5.
SHRI VINOD KUMAR MEHROTRA S/O SHRI
MOHANLAL MEHROTRA , AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O: 182, TELEPHONE
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.
SHRI SHARAD CHANDRA SHUKLA S/O SHRI RAM
CHANDRA SHUKLA , AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O: 183, TELEPHONE
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7.
SHRI BHANWARLAL SHOKLAL S/O SHRI HIRALAL
SHOKLAL , AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O: 184, TELEPHONE NAGAR , INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8.
SMT. UJJAWALA GHANTE W/O SHRI S.K. GHANTE ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
R/O: 185, TELEPHONE NAGAR , INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9.
SHRI SATISH KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI SHRAVAN
KUMAR SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O: 186, TELEPHONE
NAGAR , INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
10.
SHRI KEDAR JOSHI S/O SHRI MANOHAR JOSHI ,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
R/O: 187, TELEPHONE NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11.
SMT. GEETA SONI S/O SHRI MANSUKHLAL SONI ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
R/O: 188, TELEPHONE NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI )
AND
1.
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA
5
PRADESH)
2.
JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND
COUNTRY PLANNING O/O : JOINT DIRECTOR T.N.C.P.
SHOPPING COMPLEX AB ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3.
COMMISSIONER
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
BUILDING
OFFICER
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION ZONE 10, IMC , INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH NAIR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL & SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22218 of 2021
Between:-
SUBHASH PATIDAR S/O SHRI BHAGIRATH JI
PATIDAR , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 187/3 TELEPHONE NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ MANAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR ITS
COMMISSIONER
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
BUILDING OFFICER ZONE NO. 10, INDORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6
4.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SHOPPING
COMPLEX, AB ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH NAIR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
& SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22219 of 2021
Between:-
MOHAN PATIDAR S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA
PATIDAR , AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 187/5 TELEPHONE NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ MANAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS
COMMISSIONER
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
BUILDING OFFICER ZONE NO. 10, INDORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SHOPPING
COMPLEX, AB ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH NAIR DEPUTY ADVOCAT GENERAL
& SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22220 of 2021
7
Between:-
HARINARAYAN PATIDAR S/O SHR RAMGOPAL
PATIDAR , AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICUTLURE 187 TELEPHONE NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ MANAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR ITS
COMMISSIONER INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
BUILDING OFFICER ZONE NO. 10 INDORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SHOPPING
COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANISH NAIR DEPUTY ADVOCAT GENERAL
& SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22671 of 2021
Between:-
VISHNU KUMAR S/O LATE RAMNIVAS BHAIYA ,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
KHASRA NO. 1326/2 VILLAGE KHAJRANA,
MANISHPURI
COLONY
INDORE
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
8
(BY SHRI VISHAL BAHETI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORTAION INDORE
THROUGH COMMISSIONER INDORE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
THE BUILDING OFFICER ZONE NO. 10 INDORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22672 of 2021
Between:-
MADHURI SHUKLA W/O DR. SATISH SHUKLA , AGED
ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. PROFESSOR
1322 MANISHPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.C. BAGADIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
SHRI RUSHIL SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH THE
COMMISSIONER
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
BUILDING OFFICER ZONE 10 INDORE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22706 of 2021
9
Between:-
SAIFI RAJA S/O SHRI HAIDAR HUSSAIN , AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KHASRA
NO. 1297, GYAN PARK COLONY, KHAJRANA,
INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.K. SETHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
LOKENDRA JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION COMMISSIONER
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
THE
COMMISSIONER
INDORE
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
BUILDING OFFICER, ZONE NO. 10 INDORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE OF INDORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND
COUNTRY PLANNING OFFICE OF THE JOINT
DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
SHOPPING COMPLEX, A.B. ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for order this day, JUSTICE
VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:
Vishal Baheti,
10
(Delivered on this 14
th day of June, 2022 )
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.
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
11
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.
03.
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
12
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 hou
