Anil Kumar Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
1 WP-9094-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9094 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC030099212022
ANIL KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraj Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and
2/State.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for the respondents No.3, 4 and 5.
Reserved on : 13.10.2026
Pronounced on : 28.10.2026
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner, calling in question the show-cause notice
dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.5/Chief
Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind, whereby the petitioner has
been called upon to remove the alleged encroachment over government land
situated at Sadar Bazar, Bhind, failing which action in accordance with law
may be taken.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the
lawful owner and possessor of the shop in question, having purchased the
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-9094-2022
property through registered sale deeds executed on 15.11.1990 and

27.09.1995. It is contended that the petitioner has been carrying on his
jewellery business from the said premises and that the property constitutes
the principal source of livelihood for him and his family members.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that,
notwithstanding the petitioner's lawful ownership, respondent No.5 issued
the impugned notice alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon
government land bearing Survey No.962, recorded in the name of the State
Government, and had raised construction extending approximately 18 feet
and 9 inches towards the public road. According to the petitioner, the
allegation of encroachment is incorrect and is contrary to the actual position
of the property, as reflected in the site map annexed with the petition. It is
urged that a footpath and drainage exist in front of the shop, beyond which
lies the public road, and that sufficient space is available for public use.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
appeared before respondent No.5 on 01.04.2022 and attempted to submit the
relevant documents in support of his ownership and possession. However, no
effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, nor his documents
were duly considered. It is contended that the respondents have proceeded on
the assumption that the petitioner has encroached upon government land
without properly examining the registered sale deeds, the site map and the
actual boundaries of the property.
It is further submitted that the impugned notice has been issued
arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner
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-9094-2022
asserts that the respondents cannot demolish or interfere with the petitioner's

shop merely on the basis of an allegation of encroachment without following
the procedure prescribed by law and without first determining the nature and
extent of the alleged encroachment. Learned counsel also placed reliance
upon the constitutional protection afforded to property under Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India and submitted that the respondents cannot
deprive the petitioner of his property or interfere with his lawful possession
except in accordance with law. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for
quashment of the impugned notice.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3, 4 and 5
submitted that the impugned notice has been issued by the competent
municipal authority in the discharge of its statutory functions upon an
allegation that the petitioner has encroached upon government land and the
adjoining public road. It is contended that the municipal authorities are duty-
bound to protect public land and ensure that no obstruction or encroachment
is permitted over areas meant for public use. Learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner's claim of ownership over the shop, by itself, does not conclude
the question whether any portion of the construction extends beyond the
petitioner's lawful property and encroaches upon government land or a public
road.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3, 4 and 5 further submitted that
the petition involves disputed questions of fact concerning the title,
possession and extent of the land allegedly occupied by the petitioners. It is
contended that such disputed questions cannot appropriately be adjudicated
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-9094-2022
in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly,

dismissal of the writ petition is sought.
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 28.04.2022, 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 notice 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 notice dated 25.03.2022 has lost
its efficacy by passage of time, particularly in the light of the interim
protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2022, which has
continued to operate till date, the impugned notice dated 25.03.2022 is
hereby quashed. However, liberty is extended to respondent No.5/Chief
Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind, to initiate fresh proceedings
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-9094-2022
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