Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 121 (MP)

Gulrez Qureshi v. State of M. P.

2018-01-30

P.K.JAISWAL, VIRENDER SINGH

body2018
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is praying for the following relief : “It is, therefore, prayed that, this petition may kindly be allowed with costs and appropriate writ, direction or order be issued to the respondents directing them not to acquire the land owned by the petitioner (as described in para (ii) of Facts) on A.B. Road, Dewas without following the due procedure of law and not to disturb the ownership and peaceful possession f the petitioner on the said land. Any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be also granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 illegally trying to acquire land admeasuring 700 sq. ft. (65.05 sq.m.) which is situated at Dewas Junior, Patwari Halka No.18, in Ward No.13 on A.B. Road, Dewas, which he has purchased by the registered sale deed dated 13.5.2008 and since then he is in peaceful possession of the said land. 4. The question involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Matin Ahmed v. State of M.P. and ors. passed in W.P.No. 05/2018 on 8.1.2018. Para 3 to 7 of order dated 8.1.2018 is relevant which reads as under : “3. A reply has been filed by the Municipal Corporation. As per para 6 of the reply of the Municipal Corporation, the action has been taken under section 305 of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, the petitioners landowners are entitled for compensation under section 387 of the Act of 1956. Para 6 of the reply reads as under : “6. It is submitted that the petitioner in the present petition fairly stated that the petitioner is not having any problem in giving land for the betterment of the city and asking for the compensation. The petitioner is free to approach competent authority under section 387 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 for claiming compensation.” 4. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation and others, reported as 2017 (1) SCC 667 . It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation and others, reported as 2017 (1) SCC 667 . She submitted that in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare (supra), the apex Court has considered the issue in question and held that for issuance of notice under section 305(1)(a), it is relevant where the repair work is undertaken in projecting part or other parts of building, the Corporation can require voluntary action on part of owner so that projecting portion can be set back by owner himself during such repair work. 5. Section 305 being a special provision with respect to maintaining a regular line of a public street. The Corporation can remove building or any part of building beyond regular line of public street. Being a special provision, section 305 would prevail over general provisions of sections 78 and 79 of the Act of 1956. 6. On due consideration of para 6 of the reply filed by the respondent No. 2 – Municipal Corporation, we direct the Municipal Corporation to proceed further and decide the issue of compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956 and the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare (supra), within a period of one months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order. 7. With the aforesaid, W.P.No.5/2018 and W.P.No.6/2018 are disposed of. 5. Order dated 8.1.2018, passed in W.P.No.5/2018, shall apply 'mutatis mutandis' in the present petition also. 6. On due consideration of the fact and circumstances, the petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 8.1.2018 passed in W.P.No. 5/2018. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.