JUDGMENT (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of seven writ petitions being WP No. 3185 of 2008, WP No. 4818 of 2008, WP No. 4837 of2008, WP No. 4389 of 2008, WP No. 4881 of 2008, WP No. 5027 of 2008 and WP No. 5028 of 2008, as the controversy in all these cases is identical and similar arguments have been addressed before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from WP No. 3185 of 2008. 2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Metal Equipment Enterprises and had purchased land bearing survey No. 176 measuring one acre, situated at Pipliyarao, Tehsil and District Indore, from the original owner Harakchand Naluja Shah through a registered sale-deed dated March 1, 1972. A copy of the aforesaid sale deed has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present petition. After having become the owner of the said land, the petitioner constructed a shed on the said land after getting the plan sanctioned from the Competent Authority of Indore Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as the respondent-corporation). The petitioner also claims that he is regularly paying the property tax qua the said property to the respondent-corporation. In a portion of the said property, one Praveen Bhai Patel, who had taken that portion on rent is running a vehicle service station. 3. The petitioner was surprised to receive a notice dated May 26, 2008 from corporation-respondent No.2, which was also addressed to Patel Motors, directing them to remove the compound wall, situated on 264.80 sq.mt. of the land, within a period of seven days from receipt of the said notice. A copy of the said notice has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. 4. It has been claimed by the petitioner that issuance of the said notice was absolutely without any authority and jurisdiction, in as much as, the land in question was absolute ownership of the petitioner, and having never been acquired by the State Government, Indore Municipal Corporation or Indore Development Authority, and the petitioner having never received any compensation for the land or for the construction raised thereupon, could not have been dispossessed from the said land nor the construction raised by him could be demolished. The petitioner approached this Court earlier, through a writ petition being WP No. 2995 of 2007. The petitioner approached this Court earlier, through a writ petition being WP No. 2995 of 2007. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated November 12, 2007. A liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the Indore Municipal Corporation and correspondingly the corporation was directed to adjudicate the pleas raised by the petitioner through the said representation and not to take any action of demolition etc. till the matter was finally decided by the corporation. The petitioner has pleaded that in terms of the liberty granted to him, he filed a detailed representation on November 16,2007, Annexure P-5. The petitioner was called for personal hearing by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation on January 24, 2008. Even a representative of the Patel Motors was also called for hearing. However, an order dated April 17 , 2008 has subsequently been communicated to the petitioner, in which, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the corporation and the petitioner has been directed to demolish the wall in question, failing which, the corporation has directed that the demolition shall be done by it. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition, yet again. 5. Inspite of a couple of opportunities granted in this regard, no reply has been filed by the respondents. In these circumstances, the arguments in the main case have been heard in absence of the reply. 6. I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, Shri Anand Pathak, learned Deputy Govt. counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri Manoj Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. 7. At the outset, it may be noticed that a perusal of the impugned order dated April 17, 2008, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, shows that various objections raised by the petitioner have been duly noticed by the Commissioner of the Corporation. The aforesaid order also shows that the land of the petitioner was required for widening of the road, a project which is being executed by Indore Development Authority on behalf of Indore Municipal Corporation. The aforesaid order also shows that the land of the petitioner was required for widening of the road, a project which is being executed by Indore Development Authority on behalf of Indore Municipal Corporation. The Commissioner has also noticed the necessity of removal of the construction of the petitioner for the purposes of the aforesaid widening. As a matter of fact, the Corporation has offered an enhanced FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to the petitioner qua the land in question. The aforesaid offer appears to have been made by the corporation merely as an incentive to the petitioner not to claim compensation qua his ownership land. Apparently, the petitioner has not accepted the aforesaid offer of the corporation and has chosen to approach this Court through the present petition. 8. The question, which arises for consideration before the Court is to whether the ownership land of the petitioner can be utilized by the corporation and as to whether the petitioner can be dispossessed from the aforesaid owned land without payment of any compensation and without following the due procedure, in accordance with law. 9. At the outset, it may be relevant to notice that it has observed by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd. and others, (2007) 8 SCC 705 that right of property had ceased to be a fundamental right but all the same, it is a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as a matter of fact, a right to own property and enjoy the same is also a human right. In these circumstances, once the petitioner is concededly the owner of the property in question, then his right to own and retain the said property being not only a constitutional right, but also his human right, by any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the aforesaid rights, except by following the due procedure of law. It would have been absolutely a different matter, if there was no dispute between the parties and the offer of the enhanced FAR would have been accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner can always willingly and voluntarily handover his ownership land to the corporation for widening of the road, without payment of any compensation. It would have been absolutely a different matter, if there was no dispute between the parties and the offer of the enhanced FAR would have been accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner can always willingly and voluntarily handover his ownership land to the corporation for widening of the road, without payment of any compensation. However, if the petitioner, being the owner of the said property, has chosen not to surrender the land willingly and voluntarily, he cannot be forced to surrender the same under threat of the demolition. The land has to be first acquired, in accordance with law. A compensation, as per market value, has to be paid. The procedure established by law has to be followed. Nothing has been done in this regard by the respondents. The Court just cannot close its eyes to the wholly unauthorized action of the respondents, in attempting to deprive a citizen of his constitutional and human rights, merely because of the fact that the land of such citizen is required for a public purpose i.e. for widening the road. Even requirement of the land for a public purpose postulates the acquisition thereof, on payment of just compensation. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated April 17, 2008, Annexure P-7 passed by the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation is set aside. It is directed that the petitioner shall not be deprived of his property and dispossessed from the same, in any manner, except in accordance with law, by following the due procedure. 11. Before parting with this order, however, it is made clear that if and when the parties choose to do so by a mutual agreement, it would be open to the petitioner to surrender his land willingly and voluntarily, and thereafter it would the open for the corporation to use the same for widening of the road.