Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nikhlesh Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5964
1 WP-4384-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4384 of 2025
NIKHLESH VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner is calling question the notice Annexure P-6 dated 14.11.2024
issued by the respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to
handover the possession of the land so that road widening can be carried out as per
proposed road width laid down in the master plan of Katni city for the year, 2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the
present case is squarely covered by order passed by this Court in the case of
Satish Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in Writ Petition
No.34509/2024 and accordingly, it is prayed that this petition may also be
disposed of in the terms and conditions of order passed in the case of Satish
Kumar Gupta (supra).
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4 . This Court, by a separate order, passed in the case of Satish Kumar
Gupta (supra) has held as under:-
"This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
(i) To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondents not to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5964
2 WP-4384-2025
interfere with the petitioners' property or any portion thereof;
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and set aside impugned notice
dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure - P4);
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus and direct respondent No.2 to
undertake proper demarcation of the road in question for
determining the road centre before demolition and acquisition of
petitioners' private property;
(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondents to
assess the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners for
taking over their private property and pay the same within 30 days
with interest @ 12% p.a.;
(v) Grant any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and
just in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by order dated
07/03/2024, Municipal Corporation Katni has directed the petitioner
that the private land of petitioner is to be acquired for construction of
proposed road and therefore, he was requested to attend the office along
with his documents pertaining to ownership, P1 & P2 Khasra, building
permission etc. so that compensation can be ascertained. It is submitted
that this Court in identical Writ Petition No.31063/2024 have issued
notices and have directed the respondents not to demolish the
construction raised over the land demanded by the respondents,
therefore notices may also be issued in the present case.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In W.P. No.31063/2024, the only contention of petitioner was that
the respondents have offered double FAR but he is interested in
monetary compensation, that is why notices were issued and interim
order was passed. Whereas in the present case, Corporation itself has
offered monetary compensation and for that purpose he has been
directed to produce the documents pertaining to his ownership, P1 &
P2 Khasra, building permission etc. 7 months have passed thereafter,
but it appears that petitioner has not approached the Municipal
Corporation Katni with the documents.
5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with following
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5964
3 WP-4384-2025
observations:-
(i) Petitioner shall positively file his documents pertaining to his
ownership, P1 & P2 Khasra, building permission etc. within a
period of 5 days from today before the Assistant Revenue
Inspector as mentioned in notice dated 07/03/2024.
(ii) In case if documents are provided, then Municipal Corporation
Katni shall positively ascertain the quantum of compensation
within a period of 2 months from thereafter.
6. With aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed of."
5. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Manoj Tibrewal Akash [W.P. (C) No.1294/2020], wherein the Supreme
Court has issued detailed guidelines in the manner road can be acquired by the
Municipal Authorities or by the State Authorities for road widening.
6. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of in terms with
judgment passed in the case of Satish Kumar Gupta (supra). The respondent No.4
shall also comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Manoj Tibrewal (supra).
7. Till the proceedings in terms of Satish Kumar Gupta (supra) is
completed, the removal of construction shall not take place, if it is found on
private land.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
