VIKRAM SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the President of Century Estate Gulmohar Extension Rahwasi Sangh which is an association formed for looking after the interest of residents of the locality known as Century Estate Gulmohar Rahwasi Sangh and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has stated in this writ petition that originally Indore Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department had proposed a 80 feet wide road in the aforesaid locality connecting the existing A. B. Road with the Ring Road, but at the instance of respondent No. 4 by an order of September, 2000 annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-4 the width of the said proposed road has been reduced to 40 feet and on the basis of reduced width of the road, the building plan of the respondent No. 4 has been passed by the Indore Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 2 allowing a set back of only 10 feet from the aforesaid road to the proposed building of respondent No. 4. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for writ or order in the nature of mandamus or such other direction as the Court may deem fit directing the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 1), the Indore Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2) and the Director, Town and Country Planning Department (respondent No. 3) not to change the alignment and width of 80 feet of the road passing through the aforesaid locality connecting the A. B. Road with the Ring Road. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to ensure construction of 80 feet road connecting Saket with Ring Road through Manishpuri and Telephone Nagar and not to pass any site plan or building map contrary to it. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to cancel the sanctioned map of respondent No. 4 and to direct the respondent No. 4 to allow appropriate set backs to ensure that the width of the road remains 80 feet. In the writ petition the petitioner also prayed for interim relief restraining the respondent No. 4 from carrying on any construction work on the plot situated at Khasra No. 1324 and 1325/2 of Khazrana Village which adjoins the aforesaid road.

(2.) ON 6-5-2002 the Court issued notice and passed an interim order that respondent No. 4 shall not make any further construction on the front 40 feet of the land from the centre of the road until further orders. In the said order dated 6-5-2002, however, the Court clarified that if the respondent No. 4 wants to make any construction, then he may be permitted to do so only after leaving 40 feet as vacant land from the centre of the road, strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

(3.) THEREAFTER the respondent No. 4 filed a return on 11-7-2002 stating therein inter alia that on 8-3-2000, the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning Department wrote a letter to the Director, Town and Country Planning Department making it crystal clear that in a development plan the proposed road is not 80 feet wide and as per Rule 39 (4) of M. P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, it is feasible to reduce the width up to 40 feet only. In the said return respondent No. 4 has further stated that by another letter dated 20-4-2000, the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning Department has again made the position clear to the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, explaining in details, as to how it is impossible to have a road of 80 feet width and has suggested that a road of 40 feet width with 5 feet Footpath on both side of the road will serve the purpose.