Development plan road widening prevails over unauthorized building projections constructed beyond sanctioned plot boundaries.

The petitioner, Smt. Sunita Joshi, purchased a property in February 2025 at Nipania, Indore, which was originally constructed in 2014 under Gram Panchayat permissions

On 10.07.2026, the Building Officer of the Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC) issued an order/notice (Annexure P/1) directing the petitioner to remove the eaves (chhajja) of her building, measuring 6.44 sq. meters, within 15 days

The respondent-authority contended that the construction was an unauthorized obstruction to the widening of a road from 60 feet to 100 feet (30 meters) as mandated by the Indore Development Plan, 2021

The petitioner challenged the notice, alleging it was arbitrary, lacked proper site inspection, and relied on an expired development plan

1. Whether the impugned notice for demolition was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and mandatory legal provisions

2. Whether the construction of the eaves (chhajja) was illegal and constituted an obstruction to the implementation of the Indore Development Plan, 2021

The court applied the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, specifically Sections 18 and 19 regarding the statutory force of Development Plans

It considered the principles of natural justice, requiring adequate opportunity of hearing before adverse action

The court referred to the Indore Development Plan, 2021 as a valid statutory instrument for public infrastructure

It noted that the ratio in Raj Beesani v. State of MP was inapplicable as it had been stayed by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1413/2026

Furthermore, it emphasized the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in administrative matters involving public interest

The Court observed that the respondents followed a rigorous procedural timeline, issuing multiple notices starting from February 2026 and conducting a personal hearing on 28.04.2026 following a prior High Court direction in W.P. No. 12846/2026

On facts, the Court found that a joint measurement by a team of Revenue, T&CP, and IMC officials confirmed the eaves extended beyond the sanctioned plot boundary and were constructed without valid permission

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the expired Development Plan, noting its validity had not been specifically challenged and its implementation was for public convenience

The Court concluded that the IMC demonstrated "proper application of mind" by targeting only the unauthorized projections rather than the entire structure

The court found no evidence of arbitrariness or breach of statutory provisions and emphasized that larger public interest in road widening prevails over individual property rights arising from illegal construction. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted