Gyanchand Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
1 WP-9724-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9724 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC030104332022
GYANCHAND JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for the respondents No.3 and 4.
Shri Shiraj Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and
2/State.
Reserved on : 13.10.2026
Pronounced on : 28.10.2026
ORDER
The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated
12.04.2022 passed by respondent No.4/Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal
Council, Bhind, in Encroachment Case No. 2022/2696, whereby the
petitioners have been directed to remove the alleged encroachment over the
government land adjoining the road situated at Sadar Bazar, Bhind.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order
has been passed in an arbitrary and illegal manner, without properly
considering the reply and documents submitted by the petitioners in response
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
10:44:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
2 WP-9724-2022
to the show-cause notice dated 24.03.2022. It is contended that the

petitioners are the owners and possessors of the property in question, having
purchased the same through registered sale deeds. After the purchase,
permission was also obtained from the competent authority for raising
construction over the property, and the construction was raised in accordance
with the permission so granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the property is
situated in Sadar Bazar, Bhind, and the road in front of the property is
required to be considered in accordance with the sanctioned Development
Plan/Master Plan of Bhind. As per the petitioners, the sanctioned width of
the road from Pared Chouraha to Gol Market via Sadar Bazar is 18–19
metres, whereas the impugned order proceeds on an alleged existing road
width of 90 feet, 86 feet, 80 feet and 75 feet at different points. It is
contended that the petitioners have been directed to remove construction
measuring approximately 10 feet and 6 inches by treating the same as an
encroachment, despite the fact that the action is contrary to the sanctioned
Development Plan.
It is also submitted that the impugned action is founded upon a
demarcation report prepared by the Revenue Inspector behind the back of the
petitioners. The authorities failed to afford the petitioners an effective
opportunity of hearing and did not consider the reply and supporting
documents in their proper perspective. The impugned order, according to the
petitioners, is non-speaking, arbitrary and violative of the principles of
natural justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
10:44:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
3 WP-9724-2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners also draws the attention of this

Court to the earlier proceedings initiated in respect of the property in
question. It is submitted that the petitioners, along with similarly situated
persons, had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2905 of
2010, wherein interim protection was granted on 21.05.2010. The said writ
petition was disposed of by order dated 23.07.2010 with directions
permitting the petitioners therein to submit their replies, directing the Chief
Municipal Officer, Bhind, to examine the replies along with the documentary
evidence and pass reasoned orders, and providing that the order directing
removal of the alleged encroachment would not be given effect to for a
period of fifteen days to enable the aggrieved persons to approach the
appropriate forum.
It is further contended that the petitioners submitted their reply on
30.06.2010 in the earlier proceedings, but the same was not decided.
According to the petitioners, the present impugned action has been initiated
in a manner prejudicial to their interests, particularly after contempt
proceedings were instituted in relation to the earlier directions. On these
grounds, learned counsel prays for quashment of the impugned order dated
12.04.2022.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4,
while referring to the return filed on their behalf, opposes the petition and
submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law
after due verification of the site and consideration of the relevant records.
It is submitted that a show-cause notice dated 24.03.2022 was issued to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
10:44:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
4 WP-9724-2022
the petitioners, affording them an opportunity to submit their reply. The

petitioners submitted their reply, and the competent municipal authority
thereafter examined the matter on the basis of the available documents and
the demarcation/survey report prepared by the revenue authorities. It is
contended that the survey report disclosed encroachment by the petitioners
over government land, and the impugned order was consequently passed
directing removal of the encroachment.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 further submits that the
petitioners have not placed any cogent documentary material on record to
establish that the portion directed to be removed falls within their lawfully
owned land and no encroachment has been made over government land. The
mere fact that the petitioners possess registered sale deeds or that permission
for construction was granted would not, by itself, confer any right to occupy
government land beyond the limits of the property lawfully purchased or
permitted to be constructed upon.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 further submits that the
petition involves seriously disputed questions of fact relating to the actual
width of the road, the boundaries of the petitioners' property, the location of
the alleged encroachment and the correctness of the survey report. Such
questions, it is contended, cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is prayed that present
petition be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
10:44:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
5 WP-9724-2022
It is apparent from the record that the present petition was instituted in

the year 2022 and that this Court, vide order dated 26.05.2022, granted
interim protection to the petitioner, which has continued to operate till date.
Having regard to the fact that the matter has remained pending since
the year 2022 and the interim protection granted by this Court has continued
uninterruptedly during this period, this Court is of the considered view that
the proposed demolition drive pursuant to the impugned order has, by
passage of time, lost its efficacy. In these circumstances, no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the present petition pending for adjudication of
the controversy arising out of the impugned order.
Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the rival claims of the
parties regarding the alleged encroachment, the title and possession claimed
by the petitioner, or the correctness of the demarcation report, this Court
deems it appropriate to bring the present proceedings to a close.
In view of the fact that the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 has lost
its efficacy by passage of time, particularly in the light of the interim
protection granted by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022, which has
continued to operate till date, the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 is hereby
quashed. However, liberty is extended to respondent No.4/Chief Municipal
Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind, to initiate fresh proceedings and issue a
fresh notice to the petitioner, if occasion so arises, strictly in accordance with
law. In the event of initiation of any such proceedings, the competent
authority shall afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, duly
consider his objections and the documents relied upon by him, including the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
10:44:16 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
6 WP-9724-2022
documents relating to ownership and permission for construction, and

thereafter pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter.
With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the petition stands allowed
and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
10:44:16 AM