JUDGMENT : Regard being had to the homogeneous character of the controversy involved in the present cases, writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being decided by this Court, Facts of Writ Petition No. 8494/2009 are narrated hereunder- 2. The petitioner before this Court, a society registered under the provisions of the M. P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents, directing them to remove the illegal construction made in the premises of Abhilasha Apartment and to provide 3000 sq. ft. covered parking area to the flat owners of the building. 3. The petitioner society is a society of flat owners who have purchased flats in a building known as Abhilasha Apartment situated at 585/2 M. G. Road, Iridore, constructed by respondent No. 2 M/s Kalpa-Taru Builders. The contention of the" petitioner society is that a map was sanctioned by respondent No. 1/Municipal Corporation, Indore in respect of Abhilasha Apartment and the ground floor of Abhilasha Apartment as per the sanctioned map was covered parking area. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner society has further stated that in spite of the fact that the covered parking area was sanctioned in the map of Abhilasha Apartment, the respondents converted it into godowns and offices and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not provide 3000 sq. ft. of the covered parking area for parking purposes and instead of that a tin shade was constructed in the marginal open space which is contrary to the provisions of the M. P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 as well as the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Corporation from time to time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner society has further stated that earlier a writ petition was preferred by the society and the same was registered as W. P. No. 69/97 and a consent order was passed on 26-9-2003 on an assurance of the builder that 3000 sq. ft. of land/3000 sq. ft. of parking area shall be provided within the campus in accordance with law. He has further stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not provide the aforesaid 3000 sq. ft. ft. of land/3000 sq. ft. of parking area shall be provided within the campus in accordance with law. He has further stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not provide the aforesaid 3000 sq. ft. of area as per the consent order and therefore, a contempt petition was preferred, which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 71/04 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 28-9-2004 for want of clarification. The petitioner has further stated that SLP No. 3680/05 was preferred thereafter, and the same was also dismissed with an observation that the petitioner has to seek clarification of the main order passed in W.P. No. 69/97. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also further stated that again a contempt petition was preferred i.e. 123/05 and the same was dismissed by this Court with a liberty to the petitioner to seek clarification of order passed in W.P. No. 69/97 dated 26-9-2003. He has further stated that thereafter, a writ petition was preferred which was registered as 8181/06 and the same was again dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to seek clarification of the earlier order passed in W.P. No. 69/97. The petitioner has thereafter, preferred a MCC and the same was registered as 42/07 and his contention is that the same was dismissed as infructuous and was held that another clarification is required in the matter in light of the replies filed in the application. The petitioner's further grievance is that in spite of there being an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 69/97 and in spite of there being an undertaking furnished by the builder namely Ranjeetmal Gadia before the Municipal Corporation Indore, 3000 sq. ft. parking area has not been provided in its true sense. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that the area which has been provided by the builder is again within the area which is marginal open space and as the area is reflected as marginal open space in the sanctioned map the same cannot be used for parking purposes. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, an order or direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3, to provide parking area in the ground floor itself, i.e. within the building as per the sanctioned plan. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, an order or direction to the respondents No. 2 and 3, to provide parking area in the ground floor itself, i.e. within the building as per the sanctioned plan. It has also been pointed out before this Court that the Municipal Corporation Indore, has subsequently issued a notice dated 13-11-2009, directing the builder to remove the unauthorized construction and against which another writ petition has been preferred and the same has been registered as 8494/09 and an interim order has been passed in the matter restraining the Municipal Corporation from taking further action in the matter. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the notice has rightly been issued by the Municipal Corporation as marginal open space has been covered by the builder and the same has not constructed keeping in view the M. P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 as well as the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Corporation from time to time. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah, reported in 2007(7) SCC 689 and his contention is that a second writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of directions given in earlier writ petition. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of K. R. Shenoy vs. Udipi Municipality, reported in 1974 SC 2177, and his contention is that the illegal construction has to be demolished in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Mahendra Baburao Mahadik vs. Subhash Krishna Kanitkar, reported in AIR 2005 SC 1794 , his contention is that Municipal Corporation has no powers to regularize unauthorized construction and the proper course was to demolish the unauthorized construction. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Priyanka Estates Inter National (P) Ltd. vs. State of Assam, reported in 2010(2) SCC 27 and his contention is that in case any construction is in absolute violation of sanctioned or approved plans, the necessary consequence is demolition and Courts cannot approve such illegal activities. 12. He has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Priyanka Estates Inter National (P) Ltd. vs. State of Assam, reported in 2010(2) SCC 27 and his contention is that in case any construction is in absolute violation of sanctioned or approved plans, the necessary consequence is demolition and Courts cannot approve such illegal activities. 12. The petitioner has therefore, prayed for demolition of the unauthorized illegal construction and has also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to provide 3000 sq. ft. of parking area in the ground floor of the building in accordance with law. 13. A reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and it has been stated that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as earlier an order was passed in W.P. No. 69/97 dated 26-9-2003 and with the consent of the parties the earlier writ petition was disposed of. 14. It has been further stated, that the present writ petition has been filed after 16 years from the date the earlier order was passed in the year 2003, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. 15. The respondents in their return have admitted that a map was sanctioned by Corporation vide letter dated 24-12-1982 and on the basis of sanctioned map they have constructed the building in question. 16. It has also been stated that the construction was not in accordance with the sanction map and therefore, a notice was issued by the respondent/ Corporation and the appellate committee has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and a compounding fee to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was also accepted. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents, has further stated that the respondents have deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and the construction was completed on 1-10-1986 and a completion certificate was also issued on 4-10-1986. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that once they have paid a compounding fee and a valid completion certificate has been issued and therefore the question of providing the parking space or the question of demolishing illegal construction does not arise. It has also been stated that they have provided a parking area of 3000 sq. ft. It has also been stated that they have provided a parking area of 3000 sq. ft. in front of the building as directed by this Court vide order dated 26-9-2003 and therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter. 18. It has also been stated that some of the other residents have preferred a Civil Suit No. 106/86 and again a compromise took place in the matter and therefore, the question of issuance of any writ or order in the present case does not arise, specially keeping in view the compromise order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 67/97 dated 26-9-2003. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. In the present case the petitioner before this Court a society of flat owners who have purchased flats in building known as Abhilasha Apartment situated at 585/2 M.G. Road, Indore, constructed by respondent No. 2 M/s Kalpa-Taru Builders. The map of the building was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 24-12-1982 and the ground floor of the building as admitted by the parties as per the sanctioned map was reserved for parking. The parking area was blocked by the builder by raising walls and by converting it into Godowns. The appellate committee had passed an order dated 28-10-1986 and a compounding fee of Rs. 20,000/- was accepted by the builder. The residents of the building who are the flat owners, came up before this Court by filing a writ petition and the following order was passed in W. P. No. 69/97 (Annexure-P/l):- "Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief of demolition of illegal construction made upon the covered parking area at the ground floor of Abhilasha Apartment. Shri S. C. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the action of the respondents is illegal and contrary to the bye-laws and has approved the map and prayed for the removal of the covered area from the parking space. In reply Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition is filed by the unregistered association, therefore, is not maintainable. The State Government has already decided the matter and directed that the respondents shall provide 3000 sq. ft. of land for parking purposes to the petitioner. The matter has already been compounded by the Municipal Corporation. The State Government has already decided the matter and directed that the respondents shall provide 3000 sq. ft. of land for parking purposes to the petitioner. The matter has already been compounded by the Municipal Corporation. He has further contended that the petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents and the same has already been compromised between the parties and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the State Government has already directed the respondents to provide 3000 sq.ft. of land to the plot owners for parking purposes for that the respondents have already provided the aforesaid space for the parking purposes as opened area of 6238.81 sq.ft. is available with the respondents as submitted by them. After hearing, the learned counsel for the parties prayed for the final disposal of this petition with the following consent order. The respondents shall provide 3000 sq.ft. covered parking area to the plot owners for parking purposes within the building premises and also for parking their vehicles either in the constructed area or in front of the building and the respondents shall also file affidavit to this effect before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore within 30 days from today that within six months the respondents shall provide covered parking area to the plot owner of the building within the campus in accordance with law. With the aforesaid consent order, this petition is finally disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after due verification". 21. The aforesaid order makes it very clear that the builder was required to provide 3000 sq. ft. covered parking area to the flat owners for parking their vehicles either in the constructed area or in the front of building in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that builder instead of providing parking area in accordance with law has encroached upon the marginal open space and, therefore, the parking area has not been provided in accordance with law. It has been vehemently argued before this Court by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that a second writ petition on the same issue, claiming the same relief is not maintainable. 22. This Court in W.P. No. 69/97, has held that the builder is required to provide 3000 sq. It has been vehemently argued before this Court by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that a second writ petition on the same issue, claiming the same relief is not maintainable. 22. This Court in W.P. No. 69/97, has held that the builder is required to provide 3000 sq. ft. covered parking area to the flat owners for parking purposes in accordance with law, and it certainly means that the area was required to be provided as per the sanctioned plan i.e. in the ground floor itself, and the same has not been done by the builder. On the contrary he has encroached upon the marginal open space. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah, reported in 2007(7) SCC 689 , has passed an order and the same in paragraph 31 reads as under:- "31. Bare reading of the above order makes it more than clear that the salary to be paid to the writ petitioner was from 27-10-1997 to 29-2-1998. It was expressly stated that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for any earlier period "since he has not actually worked in the cadre of Superintendents and Assistant Revenue Officers". It is thus obvious that in spite of clear direction issued by a competent Court, no payment was made and an express order was passed to the effect that the writ petitioner would not be entitled to pay as he had not worked. The writ petitioner, therefore had legitimate grievance against such direction. A fresh substantive petition, hence, could be filed by him and since he was entitled to such relief, the Division Bench was justified in granting the prayer. 23. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is certainly maintainable before this Court as the builder has not provided parking area to the flat owners in accordance with law. 24. The Apex Court in the case of K. R. Shenoy vs. Udipi Municipality, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2177 , has passed an order and the same in paragraphs 27 and 28 reads as under:- 27. 24. The Apex Court in the case of K. R. Shenoy vs. Udipi Municipality, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2177 , has passed an order and the same in paragraphs 27 and 28 reads as under:- 27. Counsel for the respondents contended that a mere grant of licence to construct a cinema causes no injury and the appellant would have no cause of action until the building would be actually used as a cinema, The appellant can change at the threshold when the Scheme which is framed for the benefit of the residents in that area is violated by the Municipality. The Municipality acts for the public benefit in enforcing the scheme. Where the Municipality acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess. The right to build on his own land is a right incidental to the ownership of that land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been regulated in the interest of the community residing within the limits of the Municipal Committee. If under presence of any authority which the law does give to the Municipality, infringes or violates the rights of others, it becomes like all other individuals amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts. If sanction is given to build by contravening a bye-law the jurisdiction of the Courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and in­operative. 28. An illegal construction of cinema building materially affects the right to or employment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The Municipal Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoilt by unauthorized construction. The scheme is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The Municipality acts in aid of the scheme. The rights of the resident in the area are invaded by an illegal construction of a cinema building. It has to be remembered that a scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excess and derogation of the powers of the Municipality the Courts will quash orders passed by Municipalities in such cases. 25. The rights of the resident in the area are invaded by an illegal construction of a cinema building. It has to be remembered that a scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excess and derogation of the powers of the Municipality the Courts will quash orders passed by Municipalities in such cases. 25. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that if sanction is given to a build by contravening a bye-law the jurisdiction of the Courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and inoperative. 26. In the present case the compounding fee accepted by the Corporation will not absolve the builder and the builder is certainly required to provide parking area in the, ground floor itself as per the sanctioned plan. The Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. vs. State of Assam, reported in 2010(2) SCC 27 in paragraph Nos. 37 to 44 and 50 to 56 has held as under - 37. It is clear from the record that the only plan approved was on 3-2-2000 for 5½ floors by CMC. The order dated 5-5-2000 passed by SAC also does not give them blanket permission to construct up to 8th floor. 38. It is also to be seen that the respondents have come to the conclusion and have fairly conceded before us that plan or sanction approved by either of the two authorities, that is, CMC or GMDA will hold good and permission from both the authorities simultaneously would not be required for the same, if it has already been accorded by any one of the authorities. On the strength of this, we can safely proceed that if no permission under sections 24 and 25 of the Development Act was obtained by Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. then it would-not be detrimental to the interest of the appellants, provided there is sanction and approval of plans by the Corporation for remaining 3½ floors i.e. beyond 5V2 floors. 39. 39. Here, it is pertinent to point out that the respondents had also issued a public notice on 2-7-2002, published in local newspaper in vernacular giving general warning and information to all proposed purchasers of flats that unless the builder is able to show completion certificate and occupancy certificate duly issued by authorities, no one should enter into agreement to purchase flat/flats from the builder. It is, therefore, to be construed that public notice will hold good even with regard adherence to the requirement of section 88 of the Development Act, if individual person had not been noticed by the authorities. 40. Clause (a) of the Building Bye-law 37 stipulates that for the purpose of calculation of building height, existing width of the road -shall be taken into account and not the proposed width. Even if the proposed width is 40 ft. or 50 ft., it will not make any difference because it clearly contemplates what is to be taken into consideration is the existing width of the road. There is nothing on record to show that the existing width of the road is more than 38 ft. Thus, at the most, the construction could have been only up to the height of 76 ft., provided there was sanction granted by either of the two authorities. 41. Appendix III of the Building Bye-laws deals with the penalties to be levied for violation of provisions of Master Plan/Zoning Plan Regulations and Bye-laws. Certain items are compoundable items but certain items fall in the category of non-compoundable items. However, addition of extra floor falls in the category of non-compoundable items. Thus, in any case anything that has been construed beyond 5th floor would be non-compoundable and same cannot be compounded at all. In other words, minor deviations from the sanctioned plan should be confined only to FAR permissible but should not extend to the extra floor. For better appreciation of the aforesaid provision the same is reproduced here-in-below:- "Appendix HI Penalties to be levied for violations of provisions of Master Plan/Zoning Plan Regulations and Bye-laws. (i) All provisions of Bye-laws except items given below shall not be compounded/regularized and shall have to be rectified by alteration/demolition at the risk and cost of owner. Compoundable items: 1. Coverage - maximum of 15% 2. FAR maximum of 10% 3. Setback up to 2" 6" 4. Open Space reduction - maximum 10% 5. (i) All provisions of Bye-laws except items given below shall not be compounded/regularized and shall have to be rectified by alteration/demolition at the risk and cost of owner. Compoundable items: 1. Coverage - maximum of 15% 2. FAR maximum of 10% 3. Setback up to 2" 6" 4. Open Space reduction - maximum 10% 5. Total height of building 1.5% Non-compoundable items:- 1. Use of building 2. Addition of extra floor 3. Parking norms 4. Projection/encroachment of public land. " 42. The order of SAC cannot be construed as an order of sanction as it is not a semblance of permission. It was not the end of the matter because necessary sanction or permission could have been granted only by the Municipal Commissioner and not by the appellate authority. Admittedly, even after passing of the order by SAC in appeal there was no further sanction by the Municipal Commissioner or by the Chief Executive Officer of the Development Authority granting permission to raise the height of the building up to 8th floor. 43. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the opinion that construction of the building beyond 5½ floors was not only illegal, unauthorized and without any sanction or approval of plans but was also against the spirit of the appellate order of SAC, Thus, except for directing the respondent authorities to demolish the 6th, 7th and 8th floors, we are left with no alternative. 44. As regards construction of two flats on remaining half of 5th floor Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior Counsel for the respondent authorities fairly conceded that on suitable representation being made by the occupants, their cases can be considered afresh to find out if the same would fall within the category of compoundable items or not. If the same are found within the category of compoundable items then necessary order by the respondents in this regard would be passed otherwise order of demolition would follow for them also. Thus, on the promise of Senior Advocate Mr. L. Nageshwar, we hope and trust, suitable orders would be passed by the authorities as regards the two flats on the 5th floor are concerned, within two months from the date of submission of the representations. 50. Thus, on the promise of Senior Advocate Mr. L. Nageshwar, we hope and trust, suitable orders would be passed by the authorities as regards the two flats on the 5th floor are concerned, within two months from the date of submission of the representations. 50. It is not necessary to deal with the aforesaid judgments of this Court in greater detail as the consistent ratio decidendi of this Court is that if the constructions are in absolute violation of sanctioned or approved plans and are not likely to fall in the category of compoundable items, then the necessary consequence is to order its demolition and seal of approval for such illegal activities is not required to be given by this Court. 51. It is pertinent to mention here that hearing of the appeals had commenced on 22-10-2009 and had almost concluded on 28-10-2009, But on the said date, Mr. Anoop George Chaudhary and Ms. June Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appeared with Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta for Sarla Devi Lahoty and submitted that they would be replying to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents. Though not approved as a healthy practice, yet we granted them permission. It was submitted by them that if cases of two flat owners on the 5th floor are to be considered so as to find out whether the constructions raised by the builder in their cases would fall within the compoundable items or not, then the case of Sarla Devi Lahoty should also be directed to be considered on a suitable representation being made by her, as her flat is situated on the 6th floor. It was contended that even after taking the height of 6th floor, it would not cross the maximum height of 76 feet looking to the width of the existing road. 52. However, the said contention cannot be accepted as construction of an extra floor does not fall within the category of compoundable items which is manifest from Appendix III of the building bye-laws of the Corporation reproduced hereinabove. 53. However, with regard to two flats on 5th floor, a direction can be given to the respondents to consider their cases if they submit their representations within a period of 30 days hereof. The respondents would examine whether their cases fall within the compoundable items/limit or not. 53. However, with regard to two flats on 5th floor, a direction can be given to the respondents to consider their cases if they submit their representations within a period of 30 days hereof. The respondents would examine whether their cases fall within the compoundable items/limit or not. In case, the respondents come to the conclusion that these two flats constructed on 5th floor fall within the compoundable limit, then necessary orders be passed in this regard, after charging compounding fees as may be applicable to the facts of the case, in accordance with law, otherwise, they would also face the wrath of demolition. 54. Even a conjoint reading of the order dated 5-5-2000 passed by SAC and the Order dated 29-5-2002 of the Administrator-cum-Minister makes it clear as noonday that it does not clothe the appellants to continue with the construction work beyond 5Vi floors as these orders were passed subject to fulfilling certain conditions contained therein. It is obvious that what would ultimately constitute a sanctioned and duly approved map would be the one approved by the Commissioner as he alone has authority to do so. The appellants have failed to produce any such duly approved map. 55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorized constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go seat-free. Ultimately it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder. 56. Even though on earlier occasion also under similar circumstances, there have been judgments of this Court which should have been a pointer to all the builders that raising unauthorized construction never pays and is against the interest of society at large, but no need has been given to it by the builders. 56. Even though on earlier occasion also under similar circumstances, there have been judgments of this Court which should have been a pointer to all the builders that raising unauthorized construction never pays and is against the interest of society at large, but no need has been given to it by the builders. Rules, regulations and bye-laws are made by Corporations or by Development Authorities, taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is a bounden duty of the citizens to obey and follow such rules which are made for their benefit. If unauthorized constructions are allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by Court then it is bound to affect the public at large. An individual has a right, including a fundamental right, within a reasonable limit, it inroads the public rights leading to public inconvenience, therefore, it is to be curtailed to that extent. 27. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has already held that if constructions are in absolute violation of sanctioned or approved plans, the necessary consequence is demolition and Courts are not to approve of such illegal activities. 28. In the present case the builder has encroached upon the parking area which is in the ground floor of the building in question and he has covered the parking area into godowns, creating all kind of problems to the flat owners. The builder instead of clearing the encroached area has now encroached the marginal open space. Keeping in view the provisions of Bhumi Vikas Rules of 1984, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Indore deserves a command to remove the walls which has blocked the parking area in the ground floor and to ensure that the parking area as sanctioned by the sanctioned plan is made available to the petitioner. Not only this, the marginal open space which has been covered by the builder has to be treated as marginal open space as no construction can take place in open space, keeping in view the provisions of the Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984. 29. The respondent/Corporation shall take appropriate action in accordance with law positively within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 30. With the aforesaid directions the present writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 29. The respondent/Corporation shall take appropriate action in accordance with law positively within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 30. With the aforesaid directions the present writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the respondents No. 2 and 3 to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 31. As this Court has arrived at a conclusion in W. P. No. 8494/09 that the builder has encroached the parking area and has directed the Municipal Corporation to make available the parking area to the residents of the building in question as per the sanctioned map, therefore, interference with the notice dated 13-11-2009 issued by the Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Indore for removal of unauthorized constructions raised by the petitioner in the parking area does not arise. The Writ Petition No. 8494/09,. is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.