Ram Prakash Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
1 WP-9714-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9714 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC030104212022
RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ranjeet Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
Shri Shiraj Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2/State.
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 assailing the order dated 13.04.2022 passed
by respondent No.4/Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind,
whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment
over government land adjoining the road situated at Sadar Bazar, Bhind.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
owner of the property in question, having purchased the same through a
registered sale deed dated 12.03.1976 from Smt. Krishna Devi. It is
contended that, after purchasing the property, the petitioner's predecessor
obtained due permission from the competent authority on 05.01.1984 for
raising construction over the land in question, and the construction was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:07:38 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
2 WP-9714-2022
raised in accordance with the permission so granted. It is submitted that the

petitioner has been in possession of the property for a considerable period
and the construction in question cannot be treated as an encroachment merely
on the basis of a subsequent demarcation report prepared by the revenue
authorities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, on an earlier
occasion, respondent No.4 had issued a notice dated 17.05.2010 directing
removal of the construction in question, which was challenged by the
petitioner and similarly situated persons in Writ Petition No.2904 of 2010.
The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2010,
with directions to the concerned authorities to consider the reply and
documents of the affected persons and to proceed in accordance with law.
It is further contended that the petitioner was subsequently served with
a show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022, to which he submitted a reply along
with relevant documents. However, without properly considering the reply
and the documents placed on record, respondent No.4 proceeded to pass the
impugned order dated 13.04.2022 directing removal of the construction.
According to learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice and without proper appreciation
of the earlier permission granted for construction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the sanctioned
development plan of Bhind provides for a road width of 24 metres,
whereas the authorities have relied upon a demarcation report indicating
varying widths of the road. It is argued that the alleged encroachment has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:07:38 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
3 WP-9714-2022
been determined without correctly appreciating the sanctioned road

alignment and the actual position existing at the site. The petitioner further
submits that the impugned action is arbitrary, suffers from non-application of
mind and is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.
while referring to the return filed on behalf of respondent No.4, opposes the
petition and submits that the impugned order has been passed after due
consideration of the factual position and the demarcation carried out by the
competent authorities. It is contended that, pursuant to the exercise
undertaken by the Chief Municipal Officer and the employees of the Nagar
Palika Parishad, Bhind, on 22.03.2022, the width of the road commencing
from Pared Chauraha towards Gol Market, Sadar Bazar, was found to vary
between 75 feet and 90 feet at different points. It is further submitted that the
encroachment attributable to local shopkeepers and residents was found to be
between 9 feet and 20 feet, whereas the encroachment alleged against the
petitioner was measured at approximately 10 feet and 4 inches over
government land.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 further submits that the
petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022 requiring him to
remove the construction alleged to be encroaching upon government land.
However, according to the respondents, the petitioner failed to submit a reply
within the stipulated period. It is contended that the order dated 13.04.2022
was passed on the basis of the available official record and the demarcation
report, and the petitioner cannot claim any right to retain an encroachment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:07:38 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
4 WP-9714-2022
over government land merely on the basis of a long-standing possession or

an earlier permission for construction.
It is also submitted on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 that the
controversy raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact
concerning the actual width of the road, the extent of the alleged
encroachment and the correctness of the demarcation report. Such questions,
according to learned counsel, cannot appropriately be adjudicated in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the present
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:07:38 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
5 WP-9714-2022
Court deems it appropriate to bring the present proceedings to a close.

In view of the fact that the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 has lost
its efficacy by passage of time, particularly in the light of the interim
protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2022, which has
continued to operate till date, the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 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
11:07:38 AM