--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 3927 / 2010 DEVI AHILYABAI HOLKAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INDORE AND ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 1/2/2011) The petitioners before this court have filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Indore in constructing a road. The The contention of the petitioner No.1 Trust is that the respondent Municipal Corporation is encroaching the land belonging to the petitioners and the petitioners are being deprived of their legitimate right to hold the property. The petitioner No.1 as stated in the writ petition is a Charitable Trust registered in the year 1964 and is owner of land bearing Survey No. 1580, area 0.486 hectare, Patwari Halka No. 15/1 Kasba Indore. Petitioners contention is that the property in question is situated at Manik Bag Road, Indore --- 2 --- and in the year 1998 also the State made an attempt to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question. A civil suit was preferred against the State of MP and the learned Civil Judge has granted injunction in favour of the petitioner No.1 Trust and the suit was finally decreed on 1/2/2001. The petitioners have further stated that on 12/4/10 the officers of the Municipal Corporation, Indore came to the site and have drawn a line and directed the petitioners to remove their fencing and as the petitioners did not agree to remove the fencing and did not agree to handover the possession, the respondents have started digging the land nearby and started taking possession of the petitioners land. The petitioners' contention is that the respondents are not widening the road at all but are constructing the road as planned under Scheme No. 44-A of the Indore Development Authority and therefore they cannot be permitted to encroach the land belonging to the Trust. In the rejoinder it has been stated that the respondents are utilising the land of the petitioner by erecting electric poles and by constructing drainage chambers and therefore the action of the --- 3 --- respondent Municipal Corporation is bad in law. A reply has been filed in the matter by Indore Municipal Corporation and it has been stated that a road is being constructed by the Indore Municipal Corporation from Transport Nagar to Manik Bag Road to Bhanwarkuan which is having a width of 120 feet. The respondents have enclosed a lay out plan of Khatiwala Tank Colony in order to establish the width of the road as 120 feet. It has been stated that some part of the road falls within Scheme No.44- A developed by the Indore Development Authority and in the lay out plan under the Scheme the width of the road is 120 feet. The respondent Corporation has categorically stated in its reply that the fencing of the petitioner is not being removed. No land of the petitioners is being utilised by them. The respondent Corporation has also enclosed photographs as (Annexure R/2) in order to establish that they are not touching the fencing at all of the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioner No.1 Trust has --- 4 --- alleged that a road is being constructed by encroaching the land belonging to the petitioner Trust by Indore Municipal Corporation. The reply which is duly supported by an affidavit and also duly supported by the photographs reveals that the Corporation is not at all encroaching any land belonging to the petitioner Trust or petitioner No.2. Thus, there is a categoric statement in the return that the wire fencing of the petitioner trust is not being removed and no land of the petitioner has been taken by the Corporation and therefore keeping in view the aforesaid stand of the Corporation as no land of the petitioners has been taken or is being encroached, the question of interference in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. In case the petitioners are still aggrieved in the matter, the proper remedy available to the petitioners is to file a civil suit for ventilating their grievance. With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR