GOPAL DUBEY Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Public Interest Petition is by one of the resident of Suniket Apartment in Shreenagar Extension Colony, Indore for protecting the retention wall and slab which has been constructed in the adjoining Nala.

(2.) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that Suniket Apartment was constructed by respondent No.5 Kalani Industries Ltd. on the land adjoining to the nala. The residents of the apartment and the builder proposed a plan to build a retention wall and slab to cover the nala and sought permission for that purpose from the respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, Indore which was granted by the Corporation vide letter No.7038/CE/13.12.1999. A report from the Nazool Office was obtained in respect of the width of nala at different places and the permission from Nazool Officer was also obtained vide letter No.935/01 dated 1.8.2001 which on the very next date vide letter No.948/2001 dated 2.8.2001 was cancelled. The construction of the retention wall and slab over the nala was done on the basis of the said permission and a garden has been developed on the covered portion of the nala. The respondents were taking steps to remove the slab constructed on the nala on the ground that it had obstructed the flow of nala causing inconvenience to the adjoining areas, hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the prayer to restrain concerned respondents from taking any action for removal of slab constructed over the nala. Alternatively a prayer has been made for constituting a technical committee to study if the construction of slab on the top of the nala has in any way affected the flow of the nala.

(3.) The respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, Indore by filing the reply has taken the stand that on account of the construction of walls on both the sides and putting of the slab, the natural flow of nala is obstructed due to which rainy water is assembling and causing inconvenience. Their further stand is that the construction on the nala has been done without any sanction and without complying with the condition and requirement contained in the letter dated 13.12.1999. They have taken a categorical stand that the Corporation had not granted any permission to construct the retention wall or the slab and the entire construction is illegal. They have also disputed the drawing filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition.