ABDULLA YUSUF Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: Quashing demolition notice of the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation dated 1-7-2005 being Annexure P-10 as illegal and invalid.

(2.) PETITIONER vide registered sale deed dated 29-6-1954 purchased land admeasuring 722 sq. mtrs. situated at G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon. PETITIONER in the year 2001 filed an application before the Municipal Corporation (henceforth, "the Corporation") seeking permission to construct a building over the land. Vide permission dated 10-4-2001 the Corporation granted permission in accordance with various conditions laid therein. One of the conditions was that, the construction should be done after leaving an area of 22.50 mtrs. from the mid-road. When construction was in progress, the Corporation, finding violation of permission, issued notice directing the PETITIONER to construct the building in accordance with condition enshrined in the permission. That notice was replied by the PETITIONER vide letter dated 31-1-2002. PETITIONER in his reply stated that leaving 5 mtrs. of his land he has started construction and in case he is asked to go behind, he will go back voluntarily on his own risk. PETITIONER was again served with notice dated 3-7-2002 under Section 307 of the MP/CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevity "the Act, 1956") to show cause why unauthorized construction should not be removed.

(3.) PETITIONER did not object the validity of conditions imposed by the Corporation in building permission. He was again served with notice dated 25-6-2005 clearly stating that he was required to make construction leaving area 22.50 mtrs. from the middle of the road. PETITIONER replied to the notice. Having considered the same PETITIONER was again served with notice dated 1-7-2005 in order to grant opportunity of hearing to him with regard to removal of unauthorized construction under Section 307(2)(3) of the Act, 1956. PETITIONER failed to show sufficient cause and also did not remove the unauthorized construction, therefore, his unauthorized construction was liable to be removed. After due consideration in order to remove the unauthorized construction of the PETITIONER having done in 171.78 sq. mtrs of the land, final impugned notice has been served on him.