(1.) CONTROVERSY in this case is very short one. Respondent No.2 decided to construct 30 shops on the main road in the township of Mandla which is 10 feet wide strip adjoining to the main road. Petitioners' house is situated just behind the proposed construction of 30 shops. Petitioners have prayed that respondents No.1 and 2 be restrained to construct and alienate the aforesaid shops as it may cause obstruction in the traffic and also it will affect the entry to the petitioners' land and house which would fall behind the aforesaid shops.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that petitioners and one Govind Dubey are owners of land situated on Nazul sheet No.17 plot No. 10/1, 10/4, 10/24, 10/17 in the township of Mandla. These lands are situated on the side of the road of the township which is a main road connecting National Highway. Main road is about 80 feet wide and length of it is near about 3/4 km. This road is also a connecting road from the township of Mandla to Jabalpur and is a part of State Highway. On this road, Bungalow of Collector is also situated. Between the petitioners' plot and the road, there is a strip of land adjoining to the road which is recorded as plot No.9 in the revenue record. The petitioners have explained the location on the spot in the map Annexure P -3 which reflects the land of the petitioners, proposed construction and the main road. Respondent No.2 Nazul Officer by order dated 26.3.2003 Annexure P -9(i) and P -9 decided that the land on plot No.9 be divided into two small pieces of 12'x10' and these plots be auctioned for non -residential purpose which is beneficial to the State Government by fixing upset price of Rs.47,250/ -. An advertisement Annexure P -8(ii) alongwith map was also issued on 3.3.2003 in which proposed site of auction was shown. From the perusal of map Annexure P -9, it appears that 30 plots for non -residential purpose were planned. On 14.3.2003 a public notice was published in daily newspaper by which it was noticed that aforesaid 30 plots shall be auctioned and the conditions of auction were also shown in the aforesaid public notice. The petitioners have challenged this action of the respondents by filing this petition on the grounds :
(3.) RESPONDENT No.3 has filed a reply in which respondent No.3 has supported the petitioners. In para 1 of the return, it is stated by the respondent No.3 that the land which is to be auctioned is required to be left open for the purpose of widening the road. If the land is auctioned, permanent structure would be constructed and it would obstruct in widening of the road in future. The land is just in front of the house of the petitioners and it will not be proper to auction such land. In para 2 it is stated that the construction may be permitted after leaving 40 feet land from the centre of the road and thereafter 6 feet land for parking and only thereafter, any permission for building construction would be granted. In this regard, letter Annexure R -3/1 has been placed on record showing the intention of the Municipal Council.