Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Bhalchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2016
WP No.6357/2014
04.03.2016
None for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate
General with Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2/ State.
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
As per para 3 of reply of the State which is supported by an affidavit of Shri RS Rajput, Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Barwah, District - Khargone, encroachment over the main road of Indore
-Ichhapur has been removed by the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Jitendra Verma, who is appearing for respondent No.3 has drawn our attention to para 6.6 and submitted that the area which comes within the boundary of the Municipal Council, Barwah, they after giving notice to the enchroachers removed un-authorized temporary encroachment on 24.11.2015 and now there is no encroachment over the State Highway No.27 and the traffic is running smoothly.
In view of the aforesaid, no further action in this writ petition is required. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner that in case, if it is found that they have made incorrect statements in their reply, he is at liberty for drawing contempt against the concerned persons in accordance with law.
C.c. as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Kratika/-