Purushottam Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 9036 MP

                                    - : 1 :-




        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT INDORE
       (S.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
                Writ Petition No.12174/2021
Petitioner:              Purushottam Solanki S/o Ramniwas Solanki,
                         aged about 67 years, occupation-None, R/o
                         Old 47, New 70, Ahilyapura, Main Road,
                         Indore, M.P.
                                  Versus
Respondents : 1          State of Madhya Pradesh, through Principal
                         Secretary, Department of Urban Development
                         Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.
                  2.     Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation,
                         District Indore, M.P.
                  3.     Zonal Officer, Zone No.01, Indore Municipal
                         Corporation, District Indore, M.P.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
      Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
      Shri Akhil Godha, learned counsel for the Respondent [INT].
      Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the Respondent [R-2].
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ORDER

Date: 21.12.2021/ Indore :

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the notice dated 25.06.2021 issued by Zonal Officer, Zone No.1 calling upon the petitioner to stop the construction failing which same shall be demolished.

According to the petitioner, he and his family are residing in property situated at House No.47 and 48, New Number 70-71 Ram Mandir Ahiliyapura Main Road, Indore for the last 100 years. The aforesaid property was ancestral and came to their possession by way of transfer deed 09.07.2012. Since the construction was very old and in a delipidated condition, therefore, he has started repair work. A notice dated 05.09.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon to submit a layout plan and title document. The petitioner has submitted

- : 2 :-

that he is not raising any new construction but doing the repair work. Due to the heavy rains in the last year, there was water logging in the house and the roof has also been damaged which needs a repair but under the influence of Land Mafiya and powerful politician person with the intention to disposes the petitioner and his family, the impugned notice has been issued.

Vide order dated 14.07.2021, this court has directed parties to maintain status-quo.

After notice, Municipal Corporation has filed the reply denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is raising illegal construction in the area approximately 600 sq.feet under the garb of repairing. Since he has not obtained any permission, therefore, such construction is illegal construction. The petitioner is claiming Annexure P/3 but this is nothing but power of attorney issued by one Nand Kishore resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan claiming himself as the co-owner of the property. By notice dated 05.09.2020, the petitioner was called upon to submit a layout plan. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit No.98-A/2015 in respect of the same property which has been dismissed on 06.04.2016. The respondents have filed photographs to show that the petitioner is not doing the repair work but rather raising a new construction.

Shri Marvadi Kshtriya Mali Samaj has filed an application for intervention claiming ownership of the property in question. It is submitted that vide case No. 261/1949-B/1, the intervener has been declared the owner of the property. The judgment and decree have been filed as Annexure I/I. The petitioner is not the owner of the said property, in Probate case No.79-A/1956, the District and Session Judge has found that the said property is of the Sakalpanch Marwadi Kshatriya Mali Samaj. The intervener is paying property tax since 1964-65 of the property in question. Earlier notice was issued to the

- : 3 :-

petitioner in the year 2011 which he challenged by way of Civil Suit and that has been dismissed. Now the petitioner is raising new construction without permission from the Municipal Corporation, hence, such construction is liable to be demolished.

Heard The petitioner is claiming title by virtue of Annexure P/3 which is nothing but a power of Attorney given by Nand Kishore. No document has been filed to show ownership of Nand Kishore. This Court has appointed Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi Adv. as a Commissioner to visit the spot and submit a spot inspection report, as to whether the petitioner is raising the new construction or doing the repair work. Shri Dwivedi has submitted a report dated 14.12.2021 to the effect that new construction in the back side of the premises which is admeasuring 600-700 sq.ftis there but at present no construction activities is going on. The intervener, as well as Municipal Corporation, have also filed the photographs to ensure that the new construction is going on. Since the petitioner is not having any permission to raise construction on the land in question, therefore, Municipal Corporation has not committed any illegality in issuing the impugned notice.

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The petition is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per Rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen

PRAVEEN NAYAK 2021.12.24 16:25:33 +05'30'