Ram Prakash Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32472
1 WP-7721-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 7721 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC030083962022
RAM PRAKASH CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ranjeet Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 and
2/State.
Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
Reserved on : 13.10.2026
Pronounced on : 28.10.2026
ORDER
The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the
notices dated 15.02.2022 and 25.03.2022 issued by respondent
No.3/Municipal Council, Bhind, in relation to the alleged encroachment over
the land situated in Sadar Bazar, Bhind, as well as the consequential order
dated 11.04.2022, whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the
alleged encroachment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are
the owners and possessors of the property in question, which forms part of
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-7721-2022
their joint Hindu family property and was purchased through a registered sale

deed in the year 1965. It is further submitted that the predecessor-in-title of
the petitioners had acquired rights in the property through a registered
document executed in the year 1937. According to the petitioners, the
construction in question was raised in the year 1984 after obtaining the
requisite permission from the competent authority, namely, respondent No.3,
and the construction was undertaken in accordance with the permission and
the sanctioned map granted by the Municipal Council.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the issue
relating to the alleged encroachment had already been the subject matter of
earlier litigation before this Court in Writ Petition No.2983 of 2010 and Writ
Petition No.3673 of 2011. It is contended that the notices issued by
respondent No.3 in the year 2010 were challenged before this Court and
certain directions were issued in the aforesaid proceedings. Despite the said
orders, respondent No.3 has once again initiated proceedings against the
petitioners in respect of the same property without properly appreciating the
earlier judicial directions.
It is further submitted that respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice
dated 15.02.2022 to petitioner No.1, to which a reply was submitted on
16.02.2022 along with the relevant documents. However, without duly
considering the reply and the documents submitted by the petitioners,
respondent No.3 issued another notice dated 25.03.2022 in the form of an
order directing removal of the alleged encroachment. Learned counsel
contends that the impugned action has been undertaken in a mechanical
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-7721-2022
manner, without conducting proper demarcation in the presence of the

petitioners and without affording them an effective opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the order dated
11.04.2022 was passed without considering the documents produced by the
petitioners in support of their title and possession, as well as the permission
allegedly granted by the Municipal Council for raising the construction. It is
argued that the impugned action is contrary to the principles of natural
justice. The petitioners further contend that their constitutional right to
property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India cannot be infringed
by resorting to arbitrary proceedings for removal of the alleged
encroachment. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for quashing of the
impugned notices and order and for protection of the petitioners' possession
over the property in question.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Municipal
Council, Bhind, while opposing the writ petition, 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 in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that the earlier
orders passed by this Court do not confer an absolute or indefeasible right
upon the petitioners to retain any construction found to be in contravention
of the permission granted by the competent authority. It is pointed out that,
in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had issued directions concerning
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-7721-2022
the construction raised by the petitioners and had left it open to the

Municipal Council to take appropriate action in accordance with those
directions. According to respondent No.3, the present proceedings have been
initiated after the revenue authorities conducted a survey and prepared a
report indicating encroachment over government land and the adjoining
footpath.
It is further submitted on behalf of respondent No.3 that the petitioners
were issued a show-cause notice and were afforded an opportunity to submit
their explanation. The survey report prepared by the revenue authorities,
which has been filed along with the return as Annexure R/1, is relied upon to
contend that the construction in question extends over the land forming part
of the public road or footpath. Learned counsel submitted that the subsequent
action was taken after considering the relevant factual position and that the
petitioners cannot claim immunity from lawful proceedings merely on the
basis of the permission relied upon by them. 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
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-7721-2022
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 notices dated 15.02.2022 and
25.03.2022 issued by respondent No.3/Municipal Council, Bhind as well as
the consequential order dated 11.04.2022 have lost their 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 notices dated 15.02.2022 and 25.03.2022 issued by respondent
No.3/Municipal Council, Bhind as well as the consequential order dated
11.04.2022 are hereby quashed. However, liberty is extended to respondent
No.3/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.
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-7721-2022
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