RAMESHWAR PATEL Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners styling themselves as owners-in-possession of land bearing survey Nos.182/2 Min-2, 182/3, 182/4 Min-1 and 182/5; total admeasuring area 0.752 hectare situated in village Hukmakhedi, tahsil and district Indore have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, taking exception to the demand notice dated 08/09/2016 (Annexure P/6) whereunder amongst other demands under different heads, a sum of Rs.7,08,331/- has been raised under the head 'Narmada Capital Fund' by the Municipal Corporation Indore; Colony Cell Department (for short, 'the MCI') as pre-deposit to accord building permission for development and construction of a resort/club with the contention that the aforesaid demand is contrary to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2015(1) MPLJ 600; Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI) Vs. State of M.P., and another. In the alternative, it is contended that petitioners' representation against such demand is pending consideration, therefore, in terms of the order passed on 23/06/2014 in W.P.No.3567/2014 (Jagran Social Welfare Society Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation and others), petitioners may be allowed to deposit Rs.10/- per sq.ft., of the proposed construction area towards the said fund pending final decision and upon failure to make good the difference amount on the due date, the same may be recovered even by coercive method.

(2.) The respondents/MCI denying the averments made in the writ petition submitted that they have imposed user charge in the form of water charges for providing services to the newly developed colonies or colonies which are being regularized for incurring additional capital expenditure making provision for water supply from the Narmada river. The one time charge so levied by the MCI under section 132A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') is within domain of the Corporation. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this writ petition.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the MCI also pointed out the objects and reasons for incorporating section 132A of the Act vide M.P.Act No.15 of 2010 (19/04/2010) and deletion of the corresponding provision under section 132(1)(b) by the same amending Act. The relevant part thereof reads as under: