2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37510
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sukhraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. Through Urban Development And Housing Deparment – Respondent
WP 19732/2020
,Advocate General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA th ON THE 18 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 19732 of 2020 BETWEEN:-
SUKHRAJ SINGH S/O DILIP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS PLOT NO. 190, SANT NAGAR, KHANDWA NAKA (MADHYA PRADESH)
JASKARAN SINGH S/O DILIP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS PLOT NO. 190, SANT NAGAR KHANDWA NAKA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH CHHABRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI MUDIT MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND STATE OF M.P. THROUGH URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
1. DEPARMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
2. SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTOR
3.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
4.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
MR. O.P. GOEL S/O LATE SHRI SITARAM OCCUPATION: BUILDING
5. OFFICER ZONE 13, INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (STATE BY SHRI DEVDEEP SINGH, PANEL LAWYER)
(MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY SHRI AMOL SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified following:
O R D E R The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.12.2020, whereby the application for compounding of illegal construction has been rejected by the Indore Municipal Corporation.
The facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition are as under:-
02. One Nanak Singh S/o Shri Harnam Singh was allotted at Sant Nagar, Khandwa Raod Indore by Guru Singh Sabha which is a registered society. The society was allotted a big chunk of land by the Government of M.P. by way of compensation for the losses suffered by its members during the Communal Rights in the year 1984. Nanak Singh sold the said piece of land to petitioner No.1 vide sale agreement dated 19.06.2001, thereafter, possession was handed over on
20.06.2001.
03. Petitioners No.1 & 2 jointly constructed a two-storied house on the said plot. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between petitioners No.1 & 2 on 15.04.2014, whereby petitioner No.2 was permitted to occupy the ground floor and petitioner No.1 retained the first floor. They have been paying the property tax to the Municipal Corporation.
04. According to the petitioners, the son of petitioner No.1 namely Anmol Sandhu was found involved in a criminal case about the attack on the house of Ex BJP President of the City, thereafter, a notice for demolition under Section 307 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued in the name of Anmol Sandhu by respondent No.5. Notice dated 18.11.2020 was affixed to the subject property on 19.11.2020. The petitioners submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector General, Indore about the false implication of his son.
Signature Not Verified
05. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P. No.18028 of 2020, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2020 with liberty to reply the show-cause notice and the respondents shall pass an order by law.
06. The petitioners submitted a detailed reply dated 27.11.2020 to the show-cause notice. The petitioners also submitted an application dated 21.11.2020 for compounding of an offense under Section 308-A of the Municipal Corporation Act. Again, a notice of demolition dated 05.12.2020 was issued to the petitioners. Again a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.19357 of 2020 was filed apprehending demolition of the house. Vide impugned order dated 08.12.2020, the respondents have rejected the application for compounding because firstly Sant Nagar is situated on a green belt secondly it is an illegal colony, and third the map cannot be sanctioned because the entire house is constructed without permission.
07. Respondents filed a reply to the Writ Petition by submittin