Rupesh Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
1 WP-9723-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9723 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC030104322022
RUPESH BANSAL
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 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated
12.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Chief Municipal
Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind, whereby the petitioner has been directed
to remove the alleged encroachment over municipal land measuring
approximately 17 feet and 6 inches in length, forming part of the property
situated at Sadar Bazar, Bhind.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
owner and occupier of the property in question, which was
constructed pursuant to permission granted by the then Chief Municipal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:18:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
2 WP-9723-2022
Officer in Case No. 260/12 x 3/3 on 02.11.1962. It is contended that the

petitioner has been carrying on his business from the said premises and has
been regularly paying property tax and other municipal dues to respondent
No.3/Municipal Council, Bhind.
It is further submitted that the order impugned has been passed without
properly appreciating the sanctioned development plan of Bhind, according
to which the existing and proposed width of the road from Pared Chouraha to
Gol Market via Sadar Bazar is stated to be approximately 18 to 19 metres.
The petitioner contends that the alleged encroachment has been determined
on the basis of an incorrect demarcation report prepared behind his back,
wherein the width of the road has been shown inconsistently with the
sanctioned development plan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute
relating to the property has a long history. The predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner had acquired the adjoining portion of land through a registered sale
deed dated 07.04.1942, and the property thereafter came to the petitioner
through subsequent transactions and family arrangements. It is urged that the
petitioner has been in lawful possession of the remaining portion of the
property and has raised construction after obtaining the requisite permission
and sanctioned map.
It is also contended that a notice dated 11.05.2010, issued by the then
Chief Municipal Officer directing removal of the alleged encroachment, was
challenged before this Court in W.P. No.2668 of 2010. The said writ
petition was disposed of by a common order dated 23.06.2010, whereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:18:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
3 WP-9723-2022
directions were issued to the petitioners therein to submit their replies, if not

already submitted, and to the Chief Municipal Officer to examine the cases
after considering the replies and documentary evidence and to pass reasoned
orders. It was further directed that, in the event of a decision to remove the
alleged encroachment, the order would not be given effect to for a period of
fifteen days so as to enable the affected parties to approach the appropriate
forum.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute concerning
a portion of the property had also been adjudicated by the competent civil
court in Civil Suit No.26-A/2012, which culminated in a judgment and
decree dated 24.07.2015 in favour of the purchasers of a portion of the
property. According to the petitioner, the said decree has attained finality and
the respondents, being parties to the civil proceedings, cannot disregard its
legal effect while proceeding against the property.
It is further submitted that, although the petitioner submitted his reply
to the notice dated 25.03.2022 along with relevant documents on 29.03.2022,
the impugned order was passed without granting him an effective
opportunity of personal hearing and without properly considering his
objections and the documents relied upon by him. The petitioner alleges that
the action has been initiated on the basis of an erroneous demarcation report
and that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural
justice and inconsistent with the earlier directions issued by this Court. On
the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
quashing of the impugned order dated 12.04.2022.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:18:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
4 WP-9723-2022
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4,

while opposing the petition, submits 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 petitioner has
encroached upon Government land and the allegation of encroachment is
supported by the survey report prepared by the Revenue Authority, a copy of
which has been filed along with the return as Annexure R/1.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 further submits that the
petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022, pursuant to
which he submitted his reply. Thereafter, the objections raised by the
petitioner were considered and the impugned order was passed on the basis
of the demarcation report. It is, therefore, contended that the allegation that
the order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner is
misconceived.
It is further submitted on behalf of the municipal authorities that the
petitioner has not produced any document in the present proceedings
establishing that the disputed portion of land belongs to him or that the
construction in question does not constitute an encroachment over
Government land. According to the respondents, the dispute involves
disputed questions of fact concerning the actual location and measurement of
the property, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 also submits that
the directions issued in W.IP No.2668 of 2010 have been complied with and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:18:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
5 WP-9723-2022
that the petitioner cannot claim immunity from lawful action against

encroachment merely on the basis of the earlier proceedings. It is,
accordingly, prayed that the writ petition 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 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 28.04.2022, 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:18:20 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33080
6 WP-9723-2022
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
11:18:20 AM