Smt. Chandra Bhagchandani vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard. The petitioner purchased a land of survey Nos. 197, 198, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200 and 201 area 2.613 hectare situate at village Chirvayi vide registered sale deed dt. 25.1.1996. The petitioner has constructed a building over the land and compound wall with the approval of Municipal Corporation. The aforesaid building has been used for the purpose of running a school named as Bhartiya Vidhya Niketan.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities of the Municipal Corporation and the State Government are trying to demolish the boundary wall and they are constructing a square (chauraha) over the land of the petitioner and it is also proposed to widen the road and for that purpose land of the petitioner is being used without any acquisition. The petitioner prayed a relief that the land of the petitioner be not taken over for the purpose of construction of road or square without acquisition.

The respondents No. 1 and 2/State in the return pleaded that the respondents have never encroached over the land of the petitioner and for the purpose of widening of the road the answering respondents are not required to take possession of the land of the petitioner and they are not taking possession of any land for the purpose of widening of the road. The apprehension of the petitioner is ill founded.

The respondent No. 3 - Municipal Corporation in the separate return pleaded that the petitioner was granted permission by Town and Country Planning for construction vide letters dt. 1.7.1997 and 5.6.1997. As per the aforesaid permission, the petitioner could make construction after 25 mtr. from the middle of Shivpuri bye pass road and the petitioner made construction of boundary wall near to the existing road in violation of the permission granted by the Town and Country Planning. The petitioner has not made construction in accordance with the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation. It is further pleaded that the construction of circle has been proposed at the point where the land of the petitioner is situate because the road coming from city meets highway at that point.

From the pleadings of the respondents, it is clear that both the respondents did not want land of the petitioner for the purpose of widening of the road. The Municipal Corporation has pleaded that the petitioner has made construction of boundary wall contrary to the permission granted by the Town and Country Planning Department. If the petitioner has made any construction contrary to the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation or Town and Country Planning Department, then the petitioner can not claim any right in regard to removal of that construction. The authorities are bound to remove the construction which is illegal, however, the authorities have also no right to take the land of the petitioner for the purpose of any construction without paying compensation to the petitioner or without initiating proceeding of acquisition in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order ass to costs.