JUDGMENT Verma, J. -- 1. This is an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree passed by IV Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 26-A/99, decided on 20.1.2000. The suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration, permanent injunction and quashment of notices issued by defendants, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts material for deciding the said appeal are mentioned hereinbelow: 2.1. Appellant-plaintiff is a duly registered partnership firm having Jagjit Singh, Dhanraj, Jayant and Smt. Pushpa as its partners. Finn is basically engaged in construction activities and is building flats for being sold to prospective purchasers. In the process it had purchased an open piece of land of Survey No.5/1 of village Banjari, Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal, on 21.11.1995, by deed of registered sale executed by Smt. Sandhya Singh in its favour. It appears that on 10.10.1995, the previous owner Smt. Sandhya Singh had already applied for grant of sanction to her for construction of a building on the said piece of land with Gram Panchayat Akbarpur, Vikaskhand Fanda, District Bhopal. The said permission was granted to her by Gram Panchayat Akbarpur on 30.12.1995, after she had already executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. 2.2. Plaintiff thereafter did not obtain any further permission and proceeded to make construction as per the sanction said to have been accorded to Smt. Sandhya Singh by Gram Panchayat Akbarpur. According to plaintiff, the construction was completed in the year 1996. In all, six shops and fourteen residential flats were constructed on the said piece of land. The plaintiff also submitted a declaration before the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal, with regard to compliance of the provisions as contained in M.P. Prakoshtha Swamitva Adhiniyam. Obviously after completion of the construction of shops and the flats on the said land, the same have been purchased by different purchasers, who are now in occupation thereof. They are not aware that the construction made by plaintiff was illegal and unauthorized. Thus, they can be termed as bona fide purchasers of the shops and flats. 2.3. On coming to know to the aforesaid construction made by plaintiff, defendant No.2 had served a notice on it on 21.5.1997. They are not aware that the construction made by plaintiff was illegal and unauthorized. Thus, they can be termed as bona fide purchasers of the shops and flats. 2.3. On coming to know to the aforesaid construction made by plaintiff, defendant No.2 had served a notice on it on 21.5.1997. In the said notice it was categorically mentioned that no permission having been obtained, as required under section 30 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam of 1973"), the construction as made by plaintiff is unauthorized, illegal and as such liable to be demolished. 2.4. Plaintiff had sent reply to the same on 29.5.1997. Thereafter, fresh notices were sent to plaintiff by defendants and plaintiff also continued to send replies identical to the earlier one. According to plaintiff, survey No. 5/1 was part of the land belonging to Sarva Dharma Cooperative Housing Society, Bhopal. Earlier owner of the said plot had obtained permission for construction of the shops and residential flats thereon from Gram Panchayat Akbarpur during the relevant period, as provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 were applicable. According to the plaintiff, Gram Panchayat Akbarpur was fully competent to grant and sanction the construction. It was, therefore, contended that notices issued by defendants deserve to be quashed and construction as made by plaintiff be held to be valid and legal, as it was made strictly in accordance with the sanction accorded to it by Gram Panchayat Akabarpur. 2.5. On these averments being made in the plaint, summons were issued to the defendants. Defendants submitted written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. The main thrust of the defendants was that Gram Panchayat was neither competent nor authorized to grant sanction or permission for construction, as the land was already covered in the master plan under the Adhiniyam of 1973. They have also filed copy of the Notifications issued by the State Government on 20.7.1994 and 31.8.1994, under the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1973. By the first Notification village Banjari of Tehsil Huzoor, Bhopal was included in the master plan. Thereafter, by the subsequent Notification this village Banjari was included in the planning area, whereby no construction on any land situated in the said Banjari village could have been made unless necessary permission was obtained from defendant No.2, Director, Town and Country Planning. By the first Notification village Banjari of Tehsil Huzoor, Bhopal was included in the master plan. Thereafter, by the subsequent Notification this village Banjari was included in the planning area, whereby no construction on any land situated in the said Banjari village could have been made unless necessary permission was obtained from defendant No.2, Director, Town and Country Planning. It was also submitted by them that admittedly plaintiff has not obtained sanction or permission from defendant No.2, despite the fact that vide aforesaid Notifications land in question was already included in the master plan as also in the planning area. They have, therefore, contended that in absence of necessary permission and sanction accorded to plaintiff, notices have been issued to plaintiff calling upon it to stop the construction activities. It was also submitted that there was no merit or substance in the suit. 2.6. On the strength of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed issues. Parties went to trial. Plaintiff examined Jagdish Singh as PW 1, Defendant examined Smt. Rachna Tiwari as DW 1, Assistant Director in the office of defendant No.2. On appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Judge recorded findings against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 3. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ashok Lalwani, ably assisted by Shri Anil Lala and Shri Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents. 4. After having gone through the record, evidence and the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respective parties, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit or substance in this appeal. 5. Admittedly, plaintiff had not obtained any permission or sanction from Director, Town and Country Planning as required under section 30 of the Adhiniyam of 1973. The disputed land situated in village Banjari was already included in the master plan vide Notification dated 20.7.1994 alongwith many other villages of Bhopal. Thereafter, by a subsequent Notification issued on 30.8.1994 the said villages were also included in the planning area. All this had already happened much before the plaintiff had purchased the said piece of land from Smt. Sandhya Singh on 21.11.1995. Thereafter, by a subsequent Notification issued on 30.8.1994 the said villages were also included in the planning area. All this had already happened much before the plaintiff had purchased the said piece of land from Smt. Sandhya Singh on 21.11.1995. Since the notifications were duly published in the Gazette, it would be deemed that plaintiff had full and complete knowledge of the fact that the land has been included in the master plan and planning area and, unless permission is obtained from the Director, Town and Country Planning, no construction would be valid and any construction made thereon would not only be unauthorized but would also be illegal, liable to be demolished. 6. Despite arguing vehemently and also bringing to our notice dectrine of equity, we are not convinced with the line of argument so advanced by Shri Ashok Lalwani. After all plaintiff is a builder by profession and ought to have verified if the land in question is included in the master plan? There is nothing on record to show that any such enquiry was made by the plaintiff and thereafter it had come to know that the land is not included in the master plan. Thus, it proceeded to complete the construction as per the sanction accorded to Smt. Sandhya Singh by Gram Panchayat Akbarpur. The evidence of PW 1 Jagdish Singh shows that he was not aware of any sub Notification having been issued by State Government, whereby the suit land was also included in the master plan and then in the planning area. These notifications have duly been proved by DW 1 Smt. Rachna Tiwari who had produced the originals in the Court, which would go to prove that it would be deemed that all had the knowledge that the lands have been included in the master plan and the planning area. If that is so then unless permission and sanction was accorded by defendant No.2, no construction could have been made. 7. In the light of the aforesaid evidence it could not be disputed that the suit land was already included in the master plan and planning area much before the plaintiff had acquired title of the same. As has been mentioned hereinabove after acquiring title by the plaintiff it was incumbent on its part to have made necessary enquiries and verification with regard to the authority, which was competent and authorized to accord sanction. As has been mentioned hereinabove after acquiring title by the plaintiff it was incumbent on its part to have made necessary enquiries and verification with regard to the authority, which was competent and authorized to accord sanction. Plaintiff has failed to prove that any such enquiry was made. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the plaintiff it is clear that despite having full and complete knowledge of inclusion of the disputed land in master plan and planning area, it failed to obtain necessary permission and sanction from defendant No.2. 8. In the case in hand also, we have noticed that many such multistoried buildings have been constructed by the side of the disputed property. It is necessary on the part of the defendants to find out whether all those have been made after obtaining necessary permission and sanction from defendants or not. If no such permission of sanction has been obtained by the builders, who have constructed their buildings adjoining to the present building Dashmesh Enterprises, then action be taken against all of them in accordance with law. Defendants would also verify if adjoining constructions have been made by the builders, after the lands had been included in the master plan and planning area. 9. Admittedly, the shop-keepers and flat owners, who have invested their hard earned money in acquiring the property in the disputed Building are not before us, but their interest is to be safe guarded. Thus, we grant liberty to each one of them to take an appropriate action against the plaintiff claiming compensation in accordance with law, if any part of the building is demolished pursuant to this order. 10. The aforesaid directions have become necessary to be issued, as it has been felt by this Court that builders are making construction either without obtaining necessary permission and sanction from the competent authority, or are making construction in excess of the permission and sanction accorded to them. The directions contained herein shall be circulated amongst all the officers of the concerned department, so that they are able to abide by it. 11. Thus, we find that there as no merit or substance in this appeal. The learned trial Judge also committed no error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal thus stands dismissed with costs. 12. 11. Thus, we find that there as no merit or substance in this appeal. The learned trial Judge also committed no error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal thus stands dismissed with costs. 12. However, before saying omega, it is necessary to issue a word of caution to all the officers of Town and Country Planning Department posted throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh. Additionally, it has become imperative to issue certain directions, for despite the law laid down by the apex Court in several judgements {see Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others [ AIR 1986 SC 180 ]; Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [ AIR 1985 SC 1206 ]; Sudhir Madan v. M.C.D. [(2005)9SCC 419]; Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union and Another v. Municipal Corporation, Great Mumbai and others [ AIR 2004 SC 416 ]; Pratibha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and others [MANU/SC/0335/1991]; Dr. C.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others [ (1995)5 SCC 762 ]; Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa and others [JT 2004(9) SC 418]}, and many such others, the authorities have not woken up and create immense confusion in the growth of township and affect also the financial position of the innocent citizens. Thus, the State is to be reminded of its duties to be performed so as to provide better amenities to its citizens. Firstly, they should conduct regular checking in the city they are posted to find out with regard to construction activities, going on, where master plan is already in existence and planning areas have been shown by issuance of the notifications. This would facilitate them to verify with regard to the necessary permission and sanction having been obtained by the persons, who are constructing buildings or are carrying on construction activities. If the same is not found in order, immediate action be taken against the Builder/Owner/Person/Colonizer. Secondly, they should be careful and vigilant at the time construction is started so that they can take appropriate action to stop it forthwith, if it is not in accordance with the sanctioned map and permission granted, instead of allowing the construction to be completed and thereafter further allowing the builder to create third party rights, which causes irreparable loss and harassment to the bona fide and innocent purchasers. Thirdly, the State should endeavour to take appropriate action against all such erring officers, who have failed to notice such construction activities, which are being carried out without obtaining necessary permission and sanction from the defendant No.2. Unless this is observed strictly, unauthorized and illegal constructions would continue to mushroom in Jabalpur. Bhopal, Indore and Gwalior and other cities of State of Madhya Pradesh, where there is great dearth of open space. Fourthly, State should not allow constructions to be completed, where no proper sanction and permission has been obtained by the persons, builders and colonizers. If such a procedure is adopted by defendants then there is no reason why it would not greatly curtail unauthorized and illegal constructions in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and would provide better amenities to the residents of the cities. 13. The appeal thus stands dismissed with costs.