Ramsharan Gupta vs State of M.P. and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition for a relief that the respondent No. 3-Municipal Corporation be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/- to the petitioner and it be further restrained from taking possession of the land of the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that he is the owner of land area 6758.04 sq.ft. situate at survey No. 331. He purchased the land vide sale deed dt. 09-07-1987 from Madanlal Garg. Thereafter, he applied for diversion and the competent authority granted permission of diversion under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Thereafter, the petitioner applied to the Municipal Corporation for construction of a house. The Corporation granted the permission and sanctioned the map. In accordance with the aforesaid permission, the petitioner constructed the house. However, the officers of the Corporation on 12-03-2012 came on the spot and dismantled some part of the construction of the petitioner''s building which is arbitrary and illegal.

The Municipal Corporation-respondent Mo. 3 in its return pleaded that the petitioner was granted permission vide order dt. 30-01-1993 for construction of a building in accordance with the map. However, the petitioner had unauthorizedly constructed commercial building and shop over the open space, which was left by the Corporation in the sanctioned map. A notice to remove the construction was issued to the petitioner. A copy of the notice dt. 9.3.2012 has been filed as Annexure R-3. Since the petitioner did not remove the construction neither submitted any reply, hence, the Corporation removed the illegal construction. The construction was against the building line.

This Court appointed a Commissioner to submit the report about ground reality. The Commissioner in his report submitted that the total area of the land of the petitioner is 6075 sq.ft. and the area about 15 ft. depth and 35 ft. wide has been demolished by the Corporation, which is a part of the font portion of the property. The aforesaid area has been shown as vacant land in the building permission map granted by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner. The Commissioner further mentioned that the petitioner had made construction over the aforesaid area in the nature of shops with basement.

From the aforesaid report of the Commissioner, it is clear that the petitioner had made construction contrary to the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. Hence, in our opinion, there is no illegality in removing the construction by the Corporation. However, the corporation further pleaded that the Corporation had laid a pipe line 6 ft. deep beneath the aforesaid land on the road under project UDAY. The pipe line has been laid by the Corporation to supply drinking water to the residents of the Municipal Corporation and the Corporation has authority to do the same. Further an affidavit has been filed by the Officer of the Corporation on 31.8.2012 to the effect that the Corporation is willing to give advantage to the petitioner in the shape of enhanced FAR for construction over the said plot in lieu of laying the pipe line. It is further pleaded that the Municipal Corporation has power and authority in this regard u/s 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Municipal Corporation has laid a pipe line over the land of the petitioner without acquiring the land, hence, it is arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation of the land. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-

Suresh Singh Kushwaha Vs. Municipal Corporation and Another, .

Municipal Corporation, Indore Vs. Shri K.N. Palshikar, Indore, .

Kamdhenu Housing Co-operative Society Vs. Nagar Nigam, .

In the present case, the Municipal Corporation has laid a pipe line beneath the land of the petitioner. Section 234 of the Act of 1956 empowers the Municipal Corporation to lay or carry any wire, pipe or drain above the surface of any land or through, over or up the side of any building. The relevant provision is as under:-

Provisions as to wires, pipes or drains laid or carried above surface or ground.-In the event of any cable, wire, pipe, drain, sewer, or channel being laid or carried above the surface of any land or through, over or up the side of any building, such cable, wire, pipe drain, drain, sewer or channel, as the case may be, shall be so laid or carried as to interfere as little as possible with the rights of the owner or occupier to the due enjoyment of such land or building and reasonable compensation shall be paid in respect of any substantial interference with any such right to such enjoyment.

From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Act of 1956 has given power to the Municipal Corporation to lay any pipe beneath the land of the owner and a reasonable compensation shall be paid to the owner. The aforesaid provision is in consonance with the need of the residents of the area. The Corporation has laid a pipe line in order to provide drinking water to the residents and the petitioner was also required to keep the same portion of the land open in the map sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. Hence, the action of the Municipal Corporation could not be said to be illegal or without power and authority. However, the Corporation is bound to pay the compensation to the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid provisions. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Hence, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

That the Municipal Corporation shall fix a compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 234 of the Act of 1956. The petitioner is at liberty to place all the materials in this regard before the authorities of the Corporation. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

No order as to costs.