Umang Jaiswal vs Municipal Corporation

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
1 WA-2-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
st
ON THE 21 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2 of 2024
UMANG JAISWAL
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, Senior Advocate with Shri Prashansa
Baluapuri, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Vijayendra Singh Choudhary, Advocate for respondents/
Municipal Corporation.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12443 of 2023 whereby the writ petitioner
filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the
appellant is a law-abiding citizen with a clean antecedent and has no criminal
record. Owing to the similarity of his name with that of one Prateek Jaiswal,
against whom certain criminal cases were allegedly registered, the
respondents wrongly targeted the appellant's property.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
2 WA-2-2024
3. That on 21.05.2023 and again on 22.05.2023, notices addressed to

Prateek Jaiswal, without specifying any house number or property
description, were affixed to the appellant's house. On 23.05.2023, the
appellant submitted his reply along with documents evidencing his
ownership and the sanctioned building plan. However, without considering
these documents, the respondents demolished the front portion of the
appellant's house within a few hours. The following day, the police issued a
press release portraying the demolition as an action against a mafia, thereby
causing serious harm to the appellant's reputation.
4. That in their return dated 06.12.2023, the respondents falsely alleged
that the appellant had failed to produce ownership documents and the
sanctioned building plan during inspection, and further claimed that the
construction was not compoundable.
5. That on the same day, the matter was heard. Although the appellant
sought time to file a rejoinder to the respondents' return, the learned Single
Judge disposed of the writ petition, recording adverse findings against the
appellant and granting liberty to seek relief before the civil court. It is
therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to cause serious
prejudice to the appellant, as it was passed without properly considering the
appellant's pleadings and documents and is, therefore, unsustainable in law.
Hence, this writ appeal on the following grounds.
6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the impugned order
is contrary to law as the demolition proceedings were initiated on the basis
of notices issued to Prateek Jaiswal, S/o Shri Narayan Jaiswal, whereas the
appellant is Umang Jaiswal, S/o Shri Mohanlal Jaiswal. In the absence of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
3 WA-2-2024
valid notice to the appellant, the entire proceedings are void and liable to be

set aside.
7. That the learned Single Judge failed to consider the appellant's sale deed,
mutation notice, compounding order, sanctioned building plan, and Khasra
records, which conclusively establish his lawful ownership and possession of
the property. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-consideration
of material evidence and is perverse. The learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that demolition proceedings are independent of criminal
proceedings and cannot be justified solely on the basis of a criminal case
against another person. The demolition notices were vague and defective, as
they failed to correctly identify the appellant or the property, rendering the
action arbitrary. The respondents demolished the property without
considering the appellant's reply, in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice. The respondents' illegal action caused irreparable loss to the
appellant's property and reputation, entitling him to restoration or
compensation. The Municipal authorities acted mechanically and under
police influence, without independent application of mind, rendering the
impugned action illegal.
8. That the demolition was carried out without serving a valid notice under
Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and without affording
the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The action is in clear
violation of the statutory provisions, the principles of natural justice, and
Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
9. Per contra, the respondents support the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge and contend that the disputed property originally
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
4 WA-2-2024
belongs to the appellant's mother-in-law, Smt. Kusum Lata Jaiswal. During a

routine inspection conducted on 19.05.2023, the construction was found to
be in violation of the sanctioned building plan and the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956. Accordingly, notices under Sections 307(2) and
307(3) of the Act were issued, and since the noticee allegedly refused to
accept them, they were affixed on the property. The respondents further
contend that no reply or relevant documents were produced before the
demolition. Although the owner subsequently produced a compounding
order on 23.05.2023, they claim that only part of the construction had been
regularized and that the remaining construction, particularly in the mandatory
Front Margin Open Space (MOS), was non-compoundable and liable to
demolition. According to the respondents, only the unauthorized
construction falling within the Front MOS was demolished in accordance
with law. They further allege that, after the demolition and dismissal of the
writ petition, the appellant again raised construction in violation of the
sanctioned building plan.
10. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner had failed to produce
the sanctioned building plan, building permission, or title documents along
with his reply to the notices. As the dispute involved questions relating to
ownership and the legality of the construction, which required detailed
evidence, the writ court held that such issues could not be adjudicated in writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ
petition was disposed granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate
relief before the competent civil court.
11. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
5 WA-2-2024
for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, we find

that the the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the dispute
involves questions relating to the legality of the construction, ownership of
the property, and the validity of the sanctioned building plan, which require
appreciation of evidence and cannot be effectively adjudicated in the limited
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. It is undisputed that notices under Sections 307(2) and 307(3) of the
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, were issued and the respondents
proceeded against the alleged unauthorized construction after conducting
inspection. The respondents have placed on record material to show that the
demolition was confined to the portion of construction falling within the
non-compoundable Front Margin Open Space (MOS) area. The contention
of the appellant that the notice was issued in the name of Prateek Jaiswal
instead of Umang Jaiswal involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot
be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. The appellant has an
efficacious remedy before the competent civil court, as rightly observed by
the learned Single Judge. We also find that the learned Single Judge has not
adjudicated the merits of the rival claims but has only relegated the appellant
to the appropriate forum for determination of disputed questions of fact.
Such an order does not call for interference in the present intra-court appeal.
13. The appellant filed his reply on 23.05.2023 before the Estate Officer,
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. In his reply, he stated that he had
purchased the disputed property through a registered sale deed dated
04.10.2022. According to the sale deed, he purchased a built-up house
consisting of 400 square feet on the ground floor and 300 square feet on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
6 WA-2-2024
first floor. He further stated that after purchasing the property, he did not

carry out any new construction, and that the existing construction had already
been compounded by the competent authority.However, the registered sale
deed also describes the property as comprising 600 square feet on the ground
floor and 300 square feet on the first floor. This indicates that, at the time of
purchase, the house already had approximately 200 square feet of
construction in excess of the sanctioned area. Both documents demonstrate
that the disputed house had been constructed beyond the permissible area
prior to its purchase by the appellant.
14. The disputed house was owned by Smt. Kusumlata, and Prateek is her
son. The sale deed was executed in favour of her son-in-law; therefore, all
the persons concerned are members of the same family. Although the notice
was issued to Prateek, the reply was submitted by the present property
owner. Hence, it can be inferred that the appellant/writ petitioner had
knowledge of and received the notice. It is on record that adequate time was
not granted to the appellant/writ petitioner. However, it is also on record that
the disputed house had already been constructed beyond the
sanctioned/permissible area. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the
appellant/writ petitioner on account of the alleged procedural irregularity. If
the appellant/petitioner claims to have suffered any loss or damage due to the
demolition of the unauthorized construction, he is at liberty to institute a civil
suit and prove such loss by leading evidence. In writ jurisdiction, we cannot
determine the quantum of damages, if any, suffered by the appellant/writ
petitioner as a result of the demolition of the unauthorized construction.
15. Accordingly, we find no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54664
7 WA-2-2024
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal, being devoid of

merit, is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is
affirmed. However, the liberty granted to the appellant to avail appropriate
remedy before the competent civil court shall remain intact.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 23-07-2026
16:57:15