Facts
The petitioner, a resident of Village Alapur, District Morena, sought the removal of an illegal encroachment (a wall and toilet) on a public pathway (Survey No. 1531) that provides access to his agricultural land
Source reference: p. 1-2Earlier, in Case No. 07/2021, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed a final order on 30.12.2022 under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., directing local authorities and the police to remove the encroachment within five days
Source reference: p. 2Despite this order attaining finality, it remained unimplemented. The petitioner previously filed MCRC No. 9604/2024, where the Court observed on 06.02.2025 that the petitioner could pursue remedies under Sections 135 and 136 of the Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation/application dated 14.02.2025 to respondent No. 3 (SDM), which remained pending, leading to the filing of this Writ Petition seeking a direction for its disposal and implementation of the 2022 order
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the respondent authority to decide the pending representation regarding the non-execution of a final order passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: no citation/implied p. 42. Whether the authorities are bound to conclude proceedings under Sections 135 and 136 Cr.P.C. to ensure the removal of public nuisances/encroachments once a final order is passed
Source reference: p. 1Law Applied
The court's decision is centered on the enforcement mechanisms of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) [now BNSS], specifically Section 133 regarding the removal of public nuisances and obstructions
Source reference: p. 2It further relies on Sections 135 and 136 of the Cr.P.C., which prescribe the procedure for a person to obey the order or show cause, and the penalties/consequences for failing to comply with a lawful order made absolute
Source reference: p. 3-4The court also exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the administrative authorities perform their statutory duties
Source reference: p. 1Reasoning
The court noted that a competent authority (SDM) had already adjudicated the matter in 2022 and determined that an illegal encroachment existed on a public road
Source reference: p. 2The court highlighted that although the order had attained finality, the administrative machinery failed to execute it for several years, causing continued hardship to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 2-3Applying the liberty granted in a previous judicial order (MCRC No. 9604/2024), the court observed that since the petitioner had already invoked the alternative remedy by filing a representation for action under Sections 135 and 136 Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 3 was duty-bound to consider and decide that application
Source reference: p. 3-4Given the limited prayer for a time-bound disposal and the State’s lack of objection, the court found it fit to mandate a structured timeline for the authority to act
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits. It directed Respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation/application dated 14.02.2025 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order
The court ordered that the decision must be made through a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law, to ensure the implementation of the prior order dated 30.12.2022
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Narendra Singh YadavvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in