Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 308 (MP)

Suresh Seth v. State of M. P.

2007-03-15

J.K.MAHESHWARI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2007
ORDER S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. This petition Pro Bono Publico, has been filed to restrain the Corporation from making any changes in the terms of the lease Annexure-P/5 by which the lease of land was granted to the Onkar Charity Trust, Indore through the Administration/Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Indore and for quashing the resolution of the Municipal Corporation, Indore No. 135 passed by Mayor in Council. 2. The petitioner is the Chief Editor of daily News-Paper (Indore Samachar). He was earlier a Minister in M. P. and also a Member of Legislative Assembly. According to the petitioner, he is interested in the welfare of the public and for that purpose he files petitions. Pro Bono Publico. 3. The petitioner alleges that although the said land was allotted for an Educational Institution (Mateshwari Sugnadevi College), Respondent No. 8, the Municipal Corporation in accordance with the Resolution No. 135 is taking over the land for commercial purposes. If the Municipal Corporation is not restrained from the said illegal act, the construction intended by the Corporation on the boundary of the said College will create a perpetual nuisance and will jeopardize the safety and privacy of the Girl Students in the said College. It is in this context that the said relief has been claimed in public interest. 4. The respondent Corporation has filed a return in which they have referred to the lease having been executed in favour of the Onkar Charity Trust by the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore for 30 years at nominal lease rent of rupee one per annum. It is further averred that Sugnadevi College was granted lease of the land admeasuring 5 acres and since the land was not being fully utilised and people had started encroaching thereupon and the Trust was not in a position to run the College, a small portion of the land was segregated for construction of shops to accommodate the persons who were displaced from their shops on account of widening of the road. The Corporation has also filed permission (R/7) of the Town and Country Planning Department, Indore under the provisions of Section 28 read with Section 30 of the said Act. A site Map Annexure R/7 has also been submitted along with the return. The Corporation has also filed permission (R/7) of the Town and Country Planning Department, Indore under the provisions of Section 28 read with Section 30 of the said Act. A site Map Annexure R/7 has also been submitted along with the return. The moot question, from the pleadings of the parties, that appears for our consideration is as to whether the intended construction will jeopardise the safety of the Girls studying in the said College and will be a nuisance. Site Map Ex.l9-A indicates the relative position of the Sugnadevi College, the Temple and the proposed construction. The construction is proposed on the Southern side of the plot allotted to the Sugnadevi College. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that although this land was given solely for the purpose of the College, the Corporation is trying to put the same to commercial use which is not permissible. Learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that in the College there are hardly 600 Students and on account of the large open area, the premises of the College is being used for unholy purposes by anti-social element during the period the College is closed. His further contention is that the College has been constructed more or less in the middle of the plot and the construction of the Shops at a distance of more than 200 ft. is not likely to cause any disturbance or nuisance to the Educational Institution. There is no dispute that this Educational Institution has already been transferred to Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya. 6. From the perusal of the site Map Ex.P/4 it transpires that out of 5 acres of land, it is only in a small portion of 15,000 sq.ft. that construction is being made to allot the shops to persons who have become displaced on account of widening of the road. Reference has also been made to the order dated 24-3-2005 of a Division Bench in W.P. No. 583/2004 to buttress the argument that earlier also the matter had been brought to the notice of the Court and it was directed by the said order to incorporate all the terms and conditions as were mentioned in the application filed therein and on that basis the petition was disposed of. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to Clause (1) of paragraph 1 in which in the agreement itself which was filed in the earlier petition it was made explicit that a strip of land abutting the site of the present campus of the College at Nanda Nagar Main Road admeasuring 15,000 sq.ft. was to be used by Municipal Corporation for the purpose of re-establishing Institutions and activities displaced or destroyed by road widening schemes undertaken and completed by the Municipal Corporation in Pardesipura, parking of vehicles, planting of trees and other public purposes. The petitioner contends that under the specious plea of the order passed by this Court in the earlier petition, the respondent-Corporation is trying to utilize more area than the 15,000 sq.ft. provided for this purpose and, therefore, also, the step taken by the Municipal Corporation deserves to be set-aside. 7. We have heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed before us. 8. From the site Map Ex.P/4 it is luculent that College was granted lease of 5 acres while the building of the College exists in a very small area in the middle of the land provided to the said College. The proposed construction, according to the Municipal Corporation, is on the land admeasuring 15,000 sq.ft. though the petitioner contends that they have covered an area of 26,000 sq.ft. The learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation Shri Anand Agrawal has made it explicit that the Corporation does not intend to utilise more area than 15,000 sq.ft. for construction. The Corporation has also proposed to create a boundary wall of 6 ft. height along with spikes on top for the safety of the College and its Students. At present, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the open land of the College is being utilised for nefarious purposes by the anti-social elements after the College hours. Under these circumstances, contend the Counsel for the respondents, erection of a boundary wall of the above height with the provision to put spikes on top of it to prevent ingress of the persons who may try to scale over the wall and enter the premises, shall ensure full safety rather than perilous or a nuisance to the Schools. 9. Under these circumstances, contend the Counsel for the respondents, erection of a boundary wall of the above height with the provision to put spikes on top of it to prevent ingress of the persons who may try to scale over the wall and enter the premises, shall ensure full safety rather than perilous or a nuisance to the Schools. 9. We are of the considered view that if the 5 acre area granted to the Trust for charitable purpose i.e. to construct a College is not being utilised wholly and the open area is providing ground for misdemeanour to the miscreants if the boundary wall is constructed by the Corporation, even at the cost of construction of shop in the 15,000 sq.ft. land, it would be more for the safety of the Girl Students studying in the College and, therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is quite unfounded. The construction of the wall will further obviate the encroachment of the land of the College. We, therefore, make it clear that since in the context of the earlier judgment Corporation has been granted permission to construct only on an area of 15,000 sq.ft., the Corporation shall not exceed this area without first taking permission from all the Departments including the State Government. The Corporation has also submitted that Corporation shall pay Rs. 1.00 Lac per annum to the College. 10. With the above observation, this Public Interest Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification. Petition dismissed.