ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the respondents to stop the unauthorized construction of 11 shops being carried out without legal sanction and in violation of public safety norms on Nazul land (Survey No.144) on State Highway No. 39A at the congested intersection of Village –Bamniya. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF 02. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village – Bamniya, District – Jhabua, claiming himself to be a public-spirited individual working actively for public causes and identifies himself as an RTI activist also engaged in journalism with a reputed daily newspaper. Over the years, he has initiated several matters at the District and State level in Jhabua to expose corruption and to protect public interest. These included disclosure of financial losses to the Government, action against erring officials and successful prosecution of offenders and also matters that involve large-scale misappropriation of public funds. 2.1. According to the petitioner, at the intersection of Ratlam – Jhabua State Highway No.39A near the Ambika Mata Mandir in Village – Bamniya, there exists a sharp and narrow curve situated approximately 100 metres from the local railway station. The location is a busy junction where vehicular movement from Gujarat and Rajasthan converges with local and inter-district traffic, including heavy goods carriers transporting petroleum products, cement and chemicals. The petitioner avers that traffic congestion at this point is a daily occurrence lasting for extended periods, and the presence of the railway station nearby leads to a high volume of pedestrian traffic in the vicinity, aggravating the safety hazard. 2.3. The petitioner alleges that Survey No.144 of Village – Bamniya is a Government Nazul land adjoining the said intersection and despite repeated objections and in the absence of any lawful sanction, respondent No.5 / Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Village – Bamnia initiated construction of a commercial complex without any valid building permission, layout approval or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned departments. 2.4. The petitioner contended that the construction of 11 shops was allegedly permitted on the basis of a settlement proposal signed only by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bamniya without the approval or signatures of the elected Panchayat members and without any resolution passed by the Panchayat body. 2.4. The petitioner contended that the construction of 11 shops was allegedly permitted on the basis of a settlement proposal signed only by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bamniya without the approval or signatures of the elected Panchayat members and without any resolution passed by the Panchayat body. Accordingly to the petitioner, such construction on an already narrow stretch of a State Highway would inevitably cause complete obstruction of the road, severely impair pedestrian safety and jeopardize public life. 2.5. The petitioner avers that respondent No.5 had earlier submitted an application on 30.05.2013 seeking removal of encroachments from this junction, acknowledging the sensitivity of the area. A complaint was also filed by the petitioner through the Chief Minister Helpline, in response to which respondent No. 3 / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Petlawad, Jhabua, addressed a communication to respondent No.5 vide letter dated 03.06.2015 stating that no sanctioned construction activity was permitted on the said road. 2.6. Thereafter, respondent No.5 again submitted a fresh application for construction of shops and approval of building layout which was duly rejected vide detailed order dated 16.04.2018 by respondent No.3 citing public safety concerns given the proximity of the location to a blind turn and the heavy vehicular traffic going through the route and further directed that existing shopkeepers creating congestion be relocated to an alternate site on Karkhand Road. 2.7. The petitioner states that the construction is being carried out in gross violation of the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette Notification dated 02.07.2005, wherein it is specifically provided under Clause 14(2)(1)(a) that no access shall be constructed within 45 meters on either side from the center line of the said highway and that the location of Survey No.144 is falling well within this prohibited zone. However, despite these legal and factual constraints, respondent No.5 again submitted a fresh application on 16.01.2020, upon which construction work was resumed. 2.8. Alarmed by these developments, the other elected Panchs of Gram Panchayat, Bamniya upon learning that the proposal was submitted without their knowledge or approval submitted a formal objection on 28.01.2020 to respondent No. 2 / Collector (Panchayat), Jhabua and respondent No.3. The petitioner also lodged independent objections on 10.02.2020 and 12.02.2020 before the relevant authorities opposing the proposed construction in the interest of public safety. 2.9. The petitioner also lodged independent objections on 10.02.2020 and 12.02.2020 before the relevant authorities opposing the proposed construction in the interest of public safety. 2.9. Despite these objections, respondent No. 5 again renewed the request on 18.05.2020, seeking permission for construction and the concerned officers, despite knowing that Survey No.144 was a government Nazul land-initiated process for NOC and layout approval from respondent No.4 via communications dated 27.02.2020, 07.03.2020 and 09.03.2020. 2.10. Respondent No.4 / Divisional Manager, M.P. Road Development Corporation conducted a spot inspection and vide communication dated 13.07.2020 observed that the site was situated on a dangerous bend, and therefore, it was not feasible to grant NOC and permit construction at that site under any circumstances and further clarified that the site is unsuitable for commercial activity from the perspective of road safety and infrastructure planning. 2.11. The petitioner alleges that despite the above order, the respondent No.3 acting in disregard all the earlier orders and objections by concerned authorities issued a subsequent layout / map approval on 28.05.2020 in favour of respondent No.5 permitting construction on the same land without undertaking any inspection of the site and without obtaining necessary statutory clearances or taking into account objections submitted by the petitioner and other panchs. 2.12. Upon receiving this information, the petitioner again approached respondent No.4, which thereafter issued letters dated 11.06.2020 and 13.07.2020 clearly indicating that the construction was illegal, being undertaken without a valid NOC and is in violation of all relevant road safety norms. The other concerned panchs also submitted renewed objections, specifically pointing out that the so- called settlement proposal bore no signatures of elected Panchayat members and the photographs of ongoing construction were also submitted in support. This illegal construction was also publicly reported in a daily newspaper, substantiating the public outcry and concerns regarding danger to life and obstruction of traffic. 2.13. The petitioner thus approached this court with bona fide intention pro bono without any personal interest or monetary motivation on the ground that the unauthorized construction activity in the present petition not only jeopardizes public safety but also violates the fundamental rights of the general public under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in light of the above facts and circumstances prayed that appropriate directions be issued to immediately restrain the ongoing illegal construction activity and further to direct the respondents to dismantle the alleged illegal commercial construction. SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER 03. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present Public Interest Litigation raises issues of grave public safety arising from the unauthorized construction of commercial shops by the Gram Panchayat, Bamniya. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.5 had wrongly proceeded with the construction without obtaining any statutory approvals or technical sanctions from concerned authorities and without the NOC from respondent No. 4, which had categorically refused permission on account of the road safety hazard and despite such refusal, construction activity was carried on. 04. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No. 5 had misused his position and acted in collusion with the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to submit a settlement proposal without the knowledge or approval of the other Panchayat members, meaning thereby, violating the provisions of M.P. Panchayati Raj Act and thus, no resolution was ever legally passed authorizing the construction as per law. Learned counsel further submitted that a complaint dated 19.09.2020 has also been filed by the Government Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, alleging that the Sarpanch and his associates had exerted undue pressure to secure signatures on fabricated estimates for execution through private agencies. 05. Learned counsel submitted that in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act respondent No.5 admitted that no Government funds or materials were utilized for the work but failed to produce any sanctioned plan, estimates, or vouchers thereby confirming the absence of procedural compliance. Further, the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat Petlawad had also in his order dated 12.04.2022 confirmed the absence of technical approval, cost assessment or adherence to quality norms for this construction. 06. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.4, through its communication dated 31.08.2020 noted that the location falls on a dangerous curve where construction permission cannot be granted, however, it has taken a contradictory stand in its pleadings before this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that on an earlier occasion, a similar request for the construction of shops on a different survey number situated on the same State Highway within the jurisdiction of another Gram Panchayat was declined by the competent authority, citing safety and legal concerns. 07. Learned counsel relied on contemporaneous media reports and photographs evidencing frequent traffic blockages caused by the construction, which included a specific incident on 08.10.2022 where a loaded trolley obstructed the carriageway for several hours. 07. Learned counsel relied on contemporaneous media reports and photographs evidencing frequent traffic blockages caused by the construction, which included a specific incident on 08.10.2022 where a loaded trolley obstructed the carriageway for several hours. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the order dated 24.09.2020 of this Court wherein the construction activity was subjected to a final order, the construction activity continued creating a hazard to public life at large and prayed that this Court may direct for immediate removal of the said unauthorized commercial construction in the interest of public safety. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS / GRAM PANCHAYAT 08. The respondents have filed replies by contending that the present writ petition is misconceived and denying all the allegations of the petitioner in their entirety. Respondent No.4 had additionally submitted a compliance report in accordance with the order dated 18.07.2022 of this Court. 09. Shri Peyush Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat submitted that the construction of the shops at the site has been undertaken by the Gram Panchayat, Bamniya, over land falling within its administrative jurisdiction and in exercise of its lawful powers conferred under the Panchayat Raj framework. Learned counsel submitted that the object of the construction is to expand local commercial activity, generate revenue for public use and facilitate village-level economic development. Learned counsel submitted that the land in question, though is classified as Nazul land, however, the Panchayat is vested with administrative control over the said land and has not infringed any private right and that no illegal encroachment has taken place in derogation of any statutory provision. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the site photographs accompanied with the compliance report reflect that the shops constructed at the main square do not follow a straight line alignment rather a curved, however, the construction has been consciously carried out without extending into or encroaching upon the portion of the State Highway and a sufficient width of carriage way remains unobstructed and available for the smooth movement of vehicular traffic. 11. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the MPRRDC submitted that the maintenance and regulation of the highway in question submitted that the road in question was formally notified as a State Highway by the Government of Madhya Pradesh vide Notification dated 19.10.2005 which was subsequently superseded by Gazette Notification dated 22.07.2009 and that the current administrative control over the said highway including the stretch passing through Village – Bamniya measuring approximately 800 meters in length was transferred from the Public Works Department to MPRDC vide communication dated 30.01.2005. 12. Shri Jain, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any statutory violation or procedural irregularity in respect of the construction activity complained of and that no substantial documentary evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to show that the shops have been constructed without approval or are in breach of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 or any municipal or local body rules or regulations. 13. Shri Jain, learned counsel submitted that the construction activities have been undertaken in accordance with law and that the petitioner for any grievance has appropriate alternative remedies available under the Panchayat and Municipal law framework which he has failed to exercise and has instead approached thus court which amounts to abuse of the process of law and thus prayed that the petition be dismissed. APPRECIATION & CONCLUSION 14. The petitioner in the present PIL is challenging the approval dated 28.05.2020 by the Sub Divisional Officer in respect of construction of the shops in Gram Panchayat, Bamniya, on a Government land bearing Survey No.144 adjacent to State Highway No.39A passing through Village – Bamniya without explaining how it is arbitrary, illegal and beyond the competency. By chance, as per the alignment of the road, the construction is falling on the turning point. The construction of 11 shops will not change the existing alignment of the road. 15. According to the Gram Panchayat, earlier, the said Nazul land was under illegal encroachments of the local villages by way of temporary construction of shops. Despite making several efforts, encroachment could not be removed, therefore, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for construction of 11 shops maintaining the building line. After passing of the resolution dated 16.01.2020 by the Gram Panchayat, Bamniya, the same was placed before the Sub Divisional Officer for sanctioning the map and layout. Despite making several efforts, encroachment could not be removed, therefore, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for construction of 11 shops maintaining the building line. After passing of the resolution dated 16.01.2020 by the Gram Panchayat, Bamniya, the same was placed before the Sub Divisional Officer for sanctioning the map and layout. Vide order dated 28.05.2020, the Sub Divisional Officer has granted sanction for the construction of 11 shops at the cost of the Gram Panchayat. However, before starting the construction, no permission was taken from the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. The Divisional Manager vide order dated 13.07.2020, raised an objection and directed the Sarpanch to stop the construction. The petitioner and other local villagers also submitted their written objections before the commencement of the construction work. Since there was no stay in the matter, the construction has been completed and the shops have been leased out / sold by the Gram Panchayat. In the absence of the shop owners, no direction for demolishing the shops can be passed in this writ petition. The petitioner, being a resident, is aware of the names of all the shop owners, or he could have obtained the list of the persons who purchased the shops for the purpose of their implementation in this petition as respondents. Since they are a necessary party, the red petition suffers from non-joinder of parties. 16. The petitioner has failed to point out violation of any provisions of the Panchayat Act and the rules. The Gram Panchayat has the right over the Abadi land and also has the right to construct a market on the land situated within the limits. 17. The grievance of the petitioner is not in respect of the authority of the Gram Panchayat to construct a market, but the grievance is that such construction would cause a traffic jam in future. We have seen the site area in 3D view with the help of Google Maps, from which it is clear that shops are constructed in the same line as the other nearby shops. There is no encroachment on the Government Road. The original alignment of the road is not in a straight line, but a curve is present at the intersection of the road, which might be a reason for the congestion of the traffic. The shopping complex is maintaining the regular building line. There is no encroachment on the Government Road. The original alignment of the road is not in a straight line, but a curve is present at the intersection of the road, which might be a reason for the congestion of the traffic. The shopping complex is maintaining the regular building line. Even if these shops are removed, the situation will not improve because of construction on both sides of the state road. The entire market area is liable to be demolished in order to broaden the road. Looking at the traffic congestion, the only solution is either to demolish the entire construction on both sides of the road to make a two-lane road within the village or construct a bypass. 18. As per the compliance report submitted on 18.07.2022, at present, there is no proposal for widening of the said highway as well as construction of a bypass. The total length of the road passing through Village – Bamniya is only 800 mt., which is a part of the State Highway. Vide letter dated 30.01.2005, the said land was transferred from PWD to MPRDC. There are other measures which can be taken to avoid traffic logging and smooth flow of the traffic, firstly there should not be illegal parking in front of the shops; secondly strict action should be taken against all the shop owners who park their goods / material for sale in front of the shops which reduces actual the width of the road and causes traffic congestion. 19. Since the construction of the shops by the Gram Panchayat is as per law, the same is not liable to be demolished. But the respondents are directed to take all measures so that the traffic congestion can be avoided. The competent authority of the State Government may take a decision for the construction of the bypass, keeping in view the load of traffic. 20. With the aforesaid, the Writ Petition (PIL) stands disposed of.