ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.9668/2016; whereby, petitioner intends to challenge the validity of order-dated 20.2.2014 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Katni in purported exercise of power under sub-section (1) of section 30 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the said application with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under section 31 of 1973 Adhiniyam. 3. The I.A. stands dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as sought. 4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. Petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 8.2.2016 and notice dated 9.10.2015 issued earlier for removal of unauthorized construction. 6. Petitioner No.1 is a colonizer. With an intention to raise construction of row houses over the land bearing Khasra No.1368/1 at Gopal Nagar, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward, Katni, petitioner applied for permission under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Permission was granted vide Order No.498 dated 30.12.2003 for construction over 44000 sq. Ft. with 10% i.e. 4000 sq. ft. open space, earmarked for garden in the map sanctioned. The petitioner under the garb that he has been orally permitted, raised construction over this open space of 4000 sq. ft. Later on, realizing that unauthorized construction has been raised, petitioner approached the Authorities of Municipal Corporation for compounding. Petitioner also moved the Court by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No.21294/2015. As in the meantime, the petitioner and one Param Jeet Kaur has been subjected to notice on 9.10.2015 and 16.10.2015 to remove the unauthorized construction. 7. The petition was disposed of on 11.1.2016 in the following terms : “Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Katni to consider and decide the application preferred by the petitioner under section 308-A of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to state, the said authority shall pass a speaking order. However, in the authority shall pass a speaking order. Needless to state, the said authority shall pass a speaking order. However, in the authority shall pass a speaking order. However, in the facts of the case, it is directed that till the application preferred by the petitioner is decided, no action for demolition of the construction raised by the petitioner shall be taken. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 8. It is in pursuance to the directions that the respondent authority has passed the impugned order. The authority concerned after taking into consideration the entire facts on record, declined to accede to the claim of the petitioner for compounding, holding :- **mDr nksuksa i{kksa }kjk izLrqr izfrosnu ,oa fyf[kr i{k leFkZu dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar ;g ik;k x;k fd dkyksukbZtj }kjk xzke f[kjguh esa [kljk cankscLr 407 i-g-u- esa fLFkr [kljk Øa-1368@1 jdok 0-368 gs- ij o"kZ 2003 esa vuqKk iznku dh xbZ Fkh] mijksDr vuqKk ds ekufp= esa 4400 oxZQqV Hkwfe ikdZ ds fy, NksMh x;h Fkh] dkyksukbZtj }kjk mDr Hkwfe ij tkjh dh xbZ vuqKk ds foijhr pkj Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k dk;Z voS/k :i ls fd;k x;k gSA iz'uk/khu LFky ij Lohd`r vfHkU;kl 4400 oxZQqV ikdZ ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe ij la;qDr lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k] dVuh }kjk Lohd`r vfHkU;kl esa euethZ ls Qsjcny dj fy;k x;k] tks fd e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 308 ¼d½ ds vuqlkj iz'keu ;ksX; ugha gSA izdj.k esa dkyksukbZtj dks e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 292 ,oa blds varxZr cuk, x, dkyksukbZtj varxZr dkyksuh esa fodkl dk;Z ,oa Hkou fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ Fkh] ;g Lohd`fr uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k ds Lohd`r vfHkU;kl ds varxZr FkhA dkyksukbZtj Jh uhys'k pkSngk }kjk vfHkU;kl esa ikdZ ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe ij Hkou fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS tks e-iz- uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 308 esa mYysf[kr izko/kkuksa ds varxZr ugha gSA dkyksukbZtj }kjk dkyksuh ds fy, Lohd`r vfHkU;kl esa ikdZ ds fy, vkjf{kr Hkwfe ij 'krksZa dk mYya?ku dj Hkouksa dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS tks le>kSrk dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrkA foHkkxh; izfrosnu vuqlkj dkyksukbZtj }kjk uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k foHkkx esa izLrqr la'kks/ku vkosnu i= Hkh vekU; fd;k x;k gSA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] e-iz- tcyiqj }kjk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 21294@2015 esa fnukad 11-1-2016 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds ikyu esa fopkj djrs gq, Jh uhys'k pkSngk dk vkosnu vLohd`fr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 9. Thus, the unauthorized construction being made in the open space was found non-compoundable. 10. Section 308-A(b) of the Act of 1956 mandates that - 308-A. Compounding of offences of construction of buildings with permission. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other Act, for the time being in force or any rules or byelaws made thereunder, the commissioner may compound the offence of constructing buildings without permission or contrary to the permission granted, if – (a) … (b) the area of unauthorized construction made in the marginal open spaces or in excess of the prescribed floor area ratio does not exceed ten percent of the prescribed floor area ratio. 11. Evident it is from the material on record in the case at hand, that 4000 sq. ft. space left for the garden in the sanctioned lay-out having been used for raising construction over entire area. In view whereof, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 12. Since there exists an unauthorized construction, the respondent-Corporation are under an obligation to remove the same. The persons other than the petitioner i.e. the purchaser(s), if any, would be entitled for refund of entire amount invested, along with the interest at the lending rate, failing which they are entitled to take such civil and criminal action against the petitioner as permissible under law. 13. The petition stands dismissed. However, no costs. M. K. Agrawal for petitioners; Arpan J. Pawar for respondent No.1.