Blog

The Writ Petition is finally disposed of by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of SURESH PATIDAR V. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION through HON’BLE JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that it 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 Road”). 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.

JUDGEMENT
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. 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 Bhaiya 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.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.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI