Chakresh Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
1 WP-9726-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9726 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC030104342022
CHAKRESH JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
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 petitioner assailing 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
petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment over the
land in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order
dated 12.04.2022 has been passed arbitrarily, without proper consideration of
the petitioner's reply and the documents submitted in response to the show-
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-9726-2022
cause notice. It is contended that, although a reply was submitted by the

petitioner, the same has not been duly considered by the competent authority
before passing the order directing removal of the alleged encroachment.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is the owner and is in
possession of the property in question by virtue of a registered sale deed
dated 01.09.1972 executed in his favour by Nemi Chand son of Parijat.
Learned counsel submits that, subsequent to the purchase of the property,
permission for raising construction was also obtained from the competent
authority on 04.09.2018, pursuant to which the petitioner raised construction
over the property.
Learned counsel further submitted that the action initiated by the
municipal authorities is not the first instance in which the petitioner's
property has been subjected to proceedings for removal of alleged
encroachment. Earlier, the petitioner, along with other similarly situated
persons, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2905 of 2010,
in which interim protection was granted on 21.05.2010. The said petition was
subsequently disposed of by order dated 23.07.2010 with directions to the
municipal authorities to consider the reply, examine the relevant
documentary evidence, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to
the petitioners by speed post. It was also directed that, if the encroachment
was found to exist, the order of removal would not be given effect to for a
period of fifteen days so as to enable the affected persons to approach the
appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances.
It is contended that, in compliance with the aforesaid directions, the
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-9726-2022
petitioner submitted his reply on 30.06.2010; however, no decision was

communicated to him. Learned counsel submits that the failure of the
authorities to take a decision in accordance with the earlier directions cannot
justify the subsequent arbitrary action against the petitioner.
It is further submitted that a show-cause notice dated 24.03.2022 was
served upon the petitioner, requiring him to submit his reply along with
supporting documents within an extremely short period of twenty-four hours.
Despite the limited time granted, the petitioner submitted his reply along
with the relevant documents. However, respondent No.4 proceeded to pass
the impugned order without properly appreciating the petitioner's explanation
and documentary material.
Learned counsel also submitted that the conclusion regarding
encroachment is founded upon an alleged demarcation report prepared by the
Revenue Inspector behind the petitioner's back. According to the petitioner,
the report does not correctly reflect the actual position on the spot and has
been prepared without properly considering the sanctioned Development
Plan of Bhind.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant extract of the
Development Plan, learned counsel submitted that the proposed width of the
road from Pared Chouraha to Gol Market via Sadar Bazar is stated to be 18
to 19 metres, whereas the existing width of the road, as asserted by the
petitioner, is approximately 75 to 90 feet. It is contended that the authorities
have erroneously treated the construction measuring approximately 10 feet
and 6 inches as encroachment without properly reconciling the actual
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-9726-2022
position on the spot with the sanctioned plan and the relevant revenue

records.
Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is
contrary to the principles of natural justice, suffers from non-application of
mind and has been passed without assigning cogent reasons for rejecting the
petitioner's reply. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned
order dated 12.04.2022 be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, on
the basis of the return filed on their behalf, opposed the petition and
submitted that the impugned order has been passed after following the
prescribed procedure and upon consideration of the material available on
record.
It is contended that the municipal authorities had issued a show-cause
notice dated 24.03.2022 to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain his
position with regard to the alleged encroachment. The petitioner submitted
his reply to the said notice, and thereafter, upon consideration of the relevant
facts and the demarcation report, respondent No.4 passed the order dated
12.04.2022.
Learned counsel further submitted that the survey and demarcation
were undertaken through the competent Revenue Authority, and the report
prepared pursuant thereto revealed the existence of encroachment over
government land. It is contended that the action taken by the municipal
authorities is based upon the official survey report and the material available
on record, and the petitioner has failed to establish that no encroachment was
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-9726-2022
made by him over the government land.

It is further submitted that the factual assertions made in the petition,
particularly those relating to the actual width of the road and the alleged
absence of encroachment, are disputed questions of fact which cannot
appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has not
produced any conclusive material establishing that the construction in
question falls within the limits of his lawfully owned property or that the
demarcation report is incorrect. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel
submits that the impugned order does not warrant interference and prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
It is apparent from the record that the present petition was instituted in
the year 2022 and that this Court, vide order dated 04.05.2022, 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
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-9726-2022
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 04.05.2022, 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
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