Vivek Rusia, J
1. 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
Roadâ€). 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 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
2. 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.
3. 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 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 hours as to whether the
road should be widened up to 80 feet if necessary by acquisition of adjacent land and properties. We are also of the considered opinion that till the
authorities decide within the aforesaid time or six months as to whether the road requires widening up to 80 feet, the interim order passed by this Court
on 6.5.2002 restraining the respondent No.4 from making any construction on front 40 feet from the centre of the road should continue but it will be
open for respondent No.4 to make construction by leaving 40 feet land open from the centre of the road in accordance with the sanction of the Indore
Municipal Corporation. Similarly we direct that the respondent No.5 also will not make any construction int eh front 40 feet measured from the centre
of the road. These restraints on respondents No.4 and 5 are necessary int eh public interest or the general interest of the development of the area
because if constructions are made by them in the meanwhile on the front side of their land, it may not be possible for the authorities to expand the road
to 80 feet by acquisition and payment of heavy compensation even if the requirement of the traffic in the area may warrant expansion of the road to
80 feet. 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 this 40 feet width of the land will be left from the centre of the road by respondent No.4 and 5.â€
04. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, a dispute arose in respect of alignment of the Road hence M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 was filed seeking
clarification in the aforesaid order as alleging that the respondents are misinterpreting the order in respect of maintaining the centre line of the road.
The M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 was disposed of vide order dated 14.05.2008 by observing that from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya the Road is to be
extended up to Ring Road and since the Road proceedings from Saket Nagar up to the house of Jankilal Bhaiya is 80 feet, hence, the straight line up
to Ring Road is required to extend and shall have to leave 20 feet from each side of the Road.
5. The relevant paras of the above order are reproduced below:-
“06. It appears that the Authorities have misunderstood the direction on the basis of their own peculiar interpretation. The reference point has been
picked up by the Authorities on the basis of the width of the existing Road between the house of Jankilal Bhaiya and Ms. Madhuri. As a matter of
fact, what was intended by the directon was that the Road proceeding from Saket Nagar upto the house of Jankilal Bhaiya, which is 80 feet wide
presently, shall be extended in the straight line upto the Ring Road. Once it is clear that the Road is required to be extended, it is obvious that aligning
Road 40 feet wide with the Road 80 feet wide, the Authorities shall have to leave 20 feet from each side of the Road which is 80 feet and construct
the Road further of 40 feet width. Even if it is required to align the Road from the reference point, the centre point would be 40 feet from both sides o
the present Road and if the said centre line is taken ahead, the 40 feet Road directed to be constructed will have to be 20 feet on the right side and 20
feet on the left side of the line.â€
6. Being aggrieved by the above order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006, Jankilal Bhaiya and other owners
of the houses situated on both sides of the Road approached the Apex Court by way of SLPs. Initially, the Apex Court restrained the respondents to
construct the Road. Vide order dated 06.02.2019, the Apex Court directed the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation to file an affidavit
indicating the fresh requirement of widening of the Road. The Commissioner filed an affidavit stating that the construction of 80 feet wide road would
be in the large public interest. After considering the affidavit filed by the Indore Municipal Corporation, the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP vide
order dated 21.02.2019 with an observation that in case Indore Municipal Corporation is acquiring any land of the appellant, the compensation be made
to them in accordance with the law.
7. After the dismissal of the SLP, the Indore Municipal Corporation has prepared the alignment layout for construction of 24 meters wide (40 feet) the
Road from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road which is filed as Annexure-R/1/8 of 61. Since the said proposed map is not in a straight line and
there are 2 â€" 3 curbs on the Road, which requires demolition of certain parts of the houses situated on both sides of the Road, the petitioners have
approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. In some Writ Petitions, the petitioners are alleging that Indore Municipal Corporation is not
maintaining the straight line from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road as such deviation is not permissible after the dismissal of the SLP. Some
of the petitioners are asserting that the Municipal Corporation has no power to change the alignment and if any change is required, the State
Government is the competent authority to change the Master Plan under Section 23-A of the Nagar Tatha Gram Sudhar Adhiniyam, 1973 ( the
Adhiniyam,1973)
Facts of W.P. No.9706 of 2019 [Suresh Patidar & Others v/s Indore Municipal Corporation & Another]
8. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos.1300/2 & 1300/3 admeasuring 0.1640 and 0.3930 hectares situated at Village â€
Khajrana, Tehsil & District â€" Indore. According to the petitioners, they became the owner of the land by way of succession as the above land is the
ancestral property. The Rinpustika, Bhuabhilekh and Khasra B-1 and B-2 are in the name of family members of the petitioners. The petitioners have
raised a construction over the aforesaid land after obtaining due permission from the then Gram Panchayat, Khajrana on 16.07.1975. Thereafter, in
the year 1980, the aforesaid village came within the limit of Municipal Corporation, Indore. The petitioner made the construction strictly in accordance
with the Building Plan approved by the Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioners, their predecessor-in-title applied for sanction of the site plan
and after considering the width of the Road i.e. 24.38 meters, the plan was approved vide memo No.88 dated 15.04.1993, and accordingly, they were
required to leave only 3.16 meters land for construction of the Road. According to the petitioners, on 25.04.2019, the officers/employees of Indore
Municipal Corporation came in front of the house and drew a red line on the house of the petitioners for demolition of the house for widening of 40
feet Road. According to the petitioners, in the Master Plan (Development Plan, 1991), 80 feet wide Road was proposed in front of the house of the
petitioners and accordingly, the site plan of the petitioners as sanctioned by Indore Municipal Corporation only 3.19 meters was earmarked as a
setback.
9. The petitioners are seeking relief that Indore Municipal Corporation be directed to construct the Road as per width and alignment prescribed in
Master Plan/ Indore Development Plan.
Facts of W.P. No.9792 of 2019 [Rekha & Others v/s Indore Municipal Corporation & Another]
10. The petitioners are the residents of row houses Nos.2, 6, 10 & 14 situated at Gulmohar Residency constructed on Khasra No.1924 & 1325/2
situated at Village â€" Khajrana. The petitioners purchased the said houses through registered sale deeds dated 02.02.2018, 29.05.2003, 12.08.2005
and 03.02.2006. According to the petitioners, their houses are not coming in the way of widening of the Road up to 40 feet and despite that on
25.04.2019, respondent No.1 came on the site and marked a red line on the house of the petitioners for the purpose of demolition. The petitioners are
seeking relief that Indore Municipal Corporation be directed to construct the Road as per width and alignment prescribed in Master Plan/ Indore
Development Plan.
Facts of W.P. No.19410 of 2020 [Ghanshyamdas Soni v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others]
11. The petitioners have filed the present petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking compliance of order dated 09.05.2006 passed
in W.P. No.698 of 2002 and order dated 14.05.2008 passed in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006.
Facts of W.P. Nos.22218, 22219 & 22220 of 2021 [Subhash Patidar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others]
[ Mohan Patidar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others] & [Harinarayan Patidar v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others]
12. These are the petitioners who have already filed W.P. No.9792 of 2019 and now they have filed these separate writ petitions challenging the
validity of the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Building Officer, Indore Municipal Corporation by which they have been directed to demolish the
construction coming in the way of widening of the road up to 40 feet from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road. The petitioners are seeking
relief that Indore Municipal Corporation be directed to construct the Road as per width and alignment prescribed in Master Plan / Indore Development
Plan.
Facts of W.P. No.22671 of 2021 [Vishnu Kumar v/s Indore Municipal Corporation & Another]
13. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.1326 situated at Village â€" Khajrana, Teshil & District â€" Indore. The petitioner
purchased the said land through a registered sale deed dated 24.08.1974 and thereafter, got mutated his name in the record of respondent No.1.
According to the petitioner, the house was constructed on the aforesaid land after due permission of Gram Panchayat, Khajrana on 27.09.1974.
Hence, no illegal construction has been raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, only 10 feet area of the petitioner's property is coming
within the alignment of the Road as proposed in Master Plan, 2021, but the Indore Municipal Corporation is not constructing the Road as per the
Master Plan, 1991 to maintain the width of 40 feet of the Road and accordingly, served a notice dated 30.01.2020 for removal of the setback of
6552.70 = 316.2 sq. m. for the widening of the Road. The petitioner has submitted a representation and vide order dated 05.10.2021, the Indore
Municipal Corporation has rejected the representation. According to the petitioner, the Indore Municipal Corporation is bound to construct 40 feet
Road as per Master Plan, 2021. According to the petitioner, the correct facts were not placed before the Division Bench while deciding M.C.C.
No.824 of 2006, therefore, a direction has been given to maintain the straight line from the centre of the Road proceeding from Saket Nagar because
of which the area of 3510 sq.ft. of the house of the petitioner is going to be demolished. It is further submitted that for this land the petitioner is entitled
for compensation as per the present market rate which comes to Rs.10.00 crore. It further submitted that in SLP. No.8648 of 2012, the Apex Court
has directed that the land be acquired and till today the respondents have not initiated any process for acquisition of the land, therefore, the
respondents be directed to first acquire the land, pay the compensation and then construct the Road.
Facts of W.P. No.22672 of 2021 [Madhuri Shukla v/s Indore Municipal Corporation & Another]
14. The petitioner has filed this petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2021 and also seeking direction to the respondents to construct a
Road strictly in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.698 of 2002 (PIL) and M.C.C. No.824 of 2006. According to the
petitioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, while constructing the 40 feet wide Road by way of broadening the existing road 20-20 feet both sides from
the centre line which is nothing but willful disobedience of directions given by this High Court and because of which some portion of the house of the
petitioner is going to be demolished.
Facts of W.P. No.22706 of 2021 [Saifi Raja v/s Indore Municipal Corporation & Another]
15. The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Building Officer, Zone No.10 being
violation of the order dated 09.05.2006 passed in W.P. No.698 of 2002 and 14.08.2006 passed in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 as well as the order dated
25.02.2019 passed by the Apex Court in SLP No.8648 of 2012. The petitioner is an owner of a house situated at Gyan Park Colony, Khasra No.1294,
Indore which he purchased vide sale deed dated 31.03.1995. Thereafter, he applied for building permission which was granted on 02.11.1996.
According to the petitioner, Indore Municipal Corporation is not constructing the Road as per the directions given in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 and
proposing to demolish some part of the house. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief that Indore Municipal Corporation be
directed to construct the Road as per width and alignment prescribed in Master Plan / Indore Development Plan.
Submissions of learned counsels for the petitioners
16. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.9706 & 9792 of 2019 argued that the petitioners are not against the
widening of the Road up to 40 feet but it should be constructed strictly as per the Master Plan. Now the Indore Municipal Corporation is constructing
a Road by changing the alignment and not maintaining the alignment as per Master Plan, due to which some portions of the house of the petitioners
are going to be demolished. It is further submitted that these petitioners have constructed their house after the layout was sanctioned by the Municipal
Corporation and they have strictly left the setback area for construction of 80 feet wide Road and if it is maintained then there would be no demolition
of any house of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there cannot be any development or construction contrary to the provisions of the Master
Plan and mandatory provision of Section 25 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. It is also to be examined whether the respondents
can demolish the house of the petitioners in violation of Article 300A without any acquisition and payment of compensation.
17. Shri Manoj Manav, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.22218, 22219 & 22220 of 2021 has adopted the arguments of Shri V.K. Jain.
18. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22706 of 2021 has further added that even otherwise in terms of Master
Plain, 2021 proposed subject Road does not pass through the ownership of the land of the petitioners and no such deviation is permissible without
modifying the plan under Section 23-A of Adhiniyam of 1973. The layout of the petitioners' house was duly sanctioned in terms of the Master Plan,
1975 and 1991, therefore, the respondent / Corporation be directed to widen the Road up to 40feet strictly as per Master Plan
19. Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.22672 of 2021 submits that Municipal Corporation is
constructing the Road disobeying the direction given by this Division Bench of this High Court in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006. Once this Court has held
that the Road has been constructed in a straight line from Saket Nagar then no curbs or changing the alignment is permissible.
20. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22671 of 2021 has vehemently argued that this petitioner had constructed the
house when this area was within the limit of Gram Panchayat, Khajrana. The petitioner is not required to get the sanction plan from the Municipal
Corporation. If Indore Municipal Corporation wants to construct a 40 feet wide Road by using the property of the petitioner then as per the direction
given by the Apex Court, they should first acquire the land and pay the compensation before starting construction of the Road. It is further submitted
by the learned counsel that the Indore Municipal Corporation is proposing to give an additional FAR / TDR to the petitioner in lieu of the compensation
for which the petitioner is not ready to accept such a proposal. The respondents are proposing to take 316.2 sq.m. land of the petitioner by offering
additional FAR / TDR. It is further submitted that judgment passed in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 667 will not apply in the present case. Since the petitioner's construction does not come under the category of
encroachment, therefore, the provisions of Section 305 of the Municipal Corporation Act do not apply. Hence, Indore Municipal Corporation be
directed to raise the construction strictly in accordance with the Master Plan and after payment of compensation to the petitioner.
Submissions of the learned counsel of Indore Municipal Corporation
21. Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel submits that width of the Road from A.B. Road to Ring Road was 100 feet in the Master Plan and
accordingly, building permissions were granted to the land owners for both the sides of the road in the year 1975 and the Master Plan, 1991 was
implemented in which also the width of the Road was 24 meter (80 feet). The width of the Road from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road
which is passing through Telephone Nagar was 100 feet as mentioned in letter No.983 dated 06.03.2006 issued by the Joint Director. The Joint
Director vide letter dated 29.09.1983 has approved the development plan from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road considering the width of
Road as 100 feet and accordingly, the Municipal Corporation has sanctioned the building permission in Harsh Nagar considering the width of Road as
100 feet However, in the Master Plan, 2021, the said width has been reduced to 40 feet by the State Government which became the subject matter of
W.P. No.698/2002. Vide order dated 09.05.2006, this Court directed first to widen up the Road up to 40 feet and within six months the decision be
taken for further widening of the Road up to 80 feet after considering the traffic of the Road during peak hour. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel that in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006, this Court has made it clear that the existing Road which is 80 feet is required to be extended up to Ring
Road. Thereafter, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. Shri Munshi further made it clear that Corporation is constructing the Road strictly in
accordance with Master Plan, 2021 by maintaining the alignment of the Road for which no land is liable to be acquired and not a single house is going
to be demolished. The Indore Municipal Corporation is constructing the Road in such a manner that only boundary walls or some part of the porch of
the houses are required to be demolished and emphasizing the minimum possible demolition of the house for which the petitioners should not have any
objection. For the satisfaction of the petitioners, the Municipal Corporation has given the aforesaid submissions in writing and the same is reproduced
below:-
“1. The Corporation shall construct the subjected Road strictly in accordance to the Indore Development Plan 2021.
2. The Road shall be first constructed with the 40 feet width and later on in future it shall be widened to 80 feet in second phase as per the directions
of the Hon'ble High Court and Affidavit submitted by the Commissioner in the Supreme Court after assessing traffic load.
3. 100 feet wide land is available to the Corporation in front of Telephone Nagar and Harsh as per TNCP sanction plan of both the colonies for
construction of Road.
4. Since, 100 feet wide land is available to the Corporation in front of Telephone Nagar and Harsh Nagar, therefore there shall be no construction of
Road on any private land.
5. So far, Vishnu Kumar Bhaiya (WP 22671/21) and Smt Madhuri Shukla (WP 22672/21) are concerned, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court
vide order 09/05/2006 passed in WP No. 698/2002 in para 15 of the order has restrained both of them (as Respondent No. 4 and 5) to raise any
construction up to 40 feet both the sides from the centre of the Road and directed the Corporation to construct the Road 40 feet wide in the first phase
and further widen it to 80 feet in second phase considering the traffic load thereon. Thus, as on date there is no construction of building exists except
boundary walls of both the petitioners. Thus, 80 wide land is available without any building thereon.
6. Thus, in view of above there is free land available up to 80 feet wide between the houses of Vishnu Kumar Bhaiya (WP 22671/21) and Smt
Madhuri Shukla (WP 22672/21) and thereafter 100 feet wide land available in front of Harsh Nagar and Telephone Nagar, without having building
construction thereon except boundary wall.
7. In case of WP 22706/21(Saify Raja), the part of the house of this petitioner is perpendicular on the subject Road, thus in construction of 40 feet
wide Road the boundary wall and part of porch would fall within the Road line.
8. So far alignment is concern, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14/05/2008 passed in MCC 824/2006 has observed in para 6 that “Even if it is
required to align the Road from the reference point, the center point would be 40 feet from both sides of the present Road and if the said center line is
taken ahead, the 40 feet Road directed to be constructed will have to be 20 feet on the right side and 20 feet on the left side of the lineâ€. Thus,
corporation has aligned the Road taking center point of the Present Road.â€
22. Shri Munshi learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare
(supra) by submitting that the Apex Court has held that Section 305 of the Municipal Corporation Act empowers construction/widening of the Road on
even a private land by removing the structure. Under this Section vesting of the land is automatic and it does not violate the owners' right over the
property. It has also been observed in para 55, 57 and 59 that admissibility of TDR and additional FAR is a lawful compensation and Section 305 is not
violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India.
23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
Appreciation and Conclusions
24. After hearing the above submissions and perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion that we are not required to reconsider each and
every ground raised by the petitioners in this third round of litigation. The issue of the width of the Road and alignment has already been decided in the
Writ Petition and M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 aforesaid. The orders passed in aforesaid cases have already been upheld by the Apex Court.
25. So far as the 40 feet width of the Road is concerned, none of the petitioners has any objection. The only issue raised by the petitioners is the
alignment of the road proposed by the Indore Municipal Corporation. According to some of the petitioners, Indore Municipal Corporation is bound to
construct the road as per the Master Plan. According to learned Senior Counsel Shri V.K. Jain and Shri Sethi, and learned counsel Shri Baheti and
Shri Manav in Master Plan, there is no proposal of construction 80 feet wide road in a straight line from Saket Nagar to Ring Road. There are various
curbs / bends on the Road and if the Road is constructed strictly in accordance with the Master Plan then there would be no demolition of the house
of the petitioners. According to Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel, there should be widening of road up to 40 feet in a straight line as already
directed by Division Bench of this High Court.
26. According to the petitioners in W.P. No.19410 of 2020 (PIL) & W.P. No.22682 of 2021, this Court in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 has already held
that Road from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road to be constructed on straight line and said order has attained finality, therefore, writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed.
27. So far as the houses and the land of Harsh Nagar and Telephone Nagar are concerned, the maps were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation
observing the 100 feet wide Road and in Master Plan, 80 feet the road was proposed but now the State Government reduced the width of the Road to
40 feet Hence, that part of the road is also in a straight line. The only controversy in respect of the alignment of the road passing between the house of
Jankilal Bhaiya and Madhuri Shukla. If the Road is constructed in a straight line then the maximum portion of the house of Vishnu Kumar is going to
be demolished and the entire house of Madhuri Shukla would be saved. The Municipal Corporation has prepared proposing curve in that section in
order to demolish the minimum area of both the houses.
28. It is clear from the aforesaid proposed layout that the Indore Municipal Corporation is trying to maintain the straight line as directed by this Court
in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006. According to Shri Munshi learned counsel, the Corporation has prepared this alignment layout in order to minimize the
acquisition and demolition of the houses constructed on both sides of the Road. According, to learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue of alignment
was neither in the Public Interest Litigation nor in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006. The correct facts were not placed in the M.C.C. No.824 of 2006.,
therefore, the Court has directed to the construction of the Road maintaining a straight line. These grounds are not available to the petitioners as has
been raised in the present petitions because the SLP filed against the order passed by the Division Bench has already been dismissed, therefore, these
orders are binding on the Corporation and the Corporation is bound to construct the Road strictly as per the direction given by this Court. Relevant
paragraphs of the order passed in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 is reproduced below:-
“06. It appears that the Authorities have misunderstood the direction on the basis of their own peculiar interpretation. The reference point has been
picked up by the Authorities on the basis of the width of the existing road between the house of Jankilal Bhaiya and Ms. Madhuri. As a matter of fact,
what was intended by the direction was that the Road proceeding from Saket Nagar upto the house of Jankilal Bhaiya, which is 80 feet wide
presently, shall be extended in the straight line upto the Ring Road. Once it is clear that the Road is required to be extended, it is obvious that in
aligning road 40 feet wide with the Road 80 feet wide, the Authorities shall have to leave 20 feet from each side of the road which is 80 feet and
construct the Road further of 40 feet width. Even if it is required to align the Road from the reference point, the centre point would be 40 feet from
both sides of the present Road and if the said centre line is taken ahead, the 40 feet Road directed to be constructed will have to be 20 feet on the
right side and 20 feet on the left side of the line.â€
07…..
8. The petition for clarification is thus, disposed of and It is further submitted by the learned counsel that directed that the Authority concerned shall
construct the road on the basis of alignment of the existing 80 feet wide road from Saket to Jankilal Bhaiya , as clarified in above.â€
29. It is clear from the aforesaid paras that Division Bench of this Court was of the view of the Authorities have misunderstood the directions and on
the basis of their own interpretation picked up a reference point on the basis of the width of the existing Road between the house of Jankilal Bhaiya
and Madhuri Shukla and as a matter of fact the Road from Saket Nagar to the house of Jankilal Bhaiya is already 80 feet wide Road and the same is
liable to be extended in a straight line up to Ring Road and if it is required to align the Road from the reference point, the centre point would be 40 ft
from both sides of the present Road i.e. the Road from Saket Nagar to the house of Jankilal Bhaiya. If the said line is taken ahead up to Ring Road
then to construct a 40 feet wide Road, there would be a 20-20 feet wide Road on both the sides from the centre line. In para 8 again it has been made
clear that Authority concerned shall construct the road on the basis of the alignment of the existing 80 feet wide road from Saket to Jankilal Bhaiya.
30. In the M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 this Court has explained/clarified as to what would be the centre line of the 40 feet wide road to be constructed
from the Jankilal Bhaiya till Link Road. We would like to add that the construction of “straight line road†in the city area that too by way of
broadening of existing does not mean it has to be constructed by drawing straight line in the map by scale/ Ruler. There can't be a straight-line road by
drawing a straight line by scale (Ruler) on the city map. Certain curves / bends on the road cannot be avoided without disturbing both the starting and
terminal points of the road. Even the 80 ft wide road from A.B. Road to the house of Jankilal Bhiaya is not in a straight line and certain bends are
there. The ground position cannot be ignored for that there is a specific provision in the Indore Master Plan also. Here the Indore Municipal
Corporation is the implementing agency of the Master Plan, hence, looking to the ground reality and to avoid minimum damage to the existing houses,
a layout has been prepared and according to Shri Munshi except for boundary walls or porch, no houses are going to be demolished while maintaining
the width of 40 feet road from the centre line i.e. 20-20 both the side. The Indore Municipal Corporation has made it clear before this Court that the
Corporation shall construct the subjected Road strictly in accordance to the Indore Development Plan 2021. Hence, Indore Municipal Corporation is
directed to proceed and complete the widening work of the link road of 40 feet from the house of Jankilal Bhaiya to Ring Road.
31. This Court while passing the interim orders in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 has already directed Jankilal Bhaiya and Madhuri Shukla to construct their
house by leaving 40 feet land in front of their houses, therefore, this Court cannot modify or review the order passed in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006. The
Corporation is bound to construct the Road strictly as per the direction given by this Court in M.C.C. No.824 of 2006 and as per Master Plan as far as
possible by maintaining the equilibrium. As far as the case of Vishnu Kumar (W.P. No.22671 of 2021) is concerned, the Apex Court has already
directed the Municipal Corporation that if the acquisition is required the same can be done in accordance with the law. Hence, no fresh directions are
liable to be issued in these petitions. The Corporation is bound to act in accordance with the direction given by the Apex Court in the SLP No.8648 of
2012 and the law laid down in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare (supra).
The Director, Town & Country Planning is the custodian of the Master Plan and he has to see whether it is being properly implemented, therefore,
widening of the Road be monitored by the Director himself by any Additional Director authorized by him.
In view of the above discussion, all the Writ Petitions are finally disposed of .
Let a copy of this order be kept in the file of connected writ petitions also.
