Civil litigation does not bar preventive measures under BNSS to remove structures endangering public safety.

The three connected petitions arose out of common proceedings initiated under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and were decided by a common order.

The learned City Magistrate, Sagar, by order dated 16.01.2026, directed vacation of premises bearing House No. 325/263/1 situated at Loharwali Gali, Bariyaghat, Sagar, having found the structure dilapidated, dangerous and likely to cause public nuisance and danger to life; the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar affirmed this by orders dated 14.03.2026 in Criminal Revision Nos. 17/2026, 19/2026 and 20/2026.

The petitioners, claiming to be lawful occupants/tenants of different portions of the premises, alleged that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of Shri Digambar Jain Sagroday Teerth Trust in collusion with the Municipal Corporation with the object of evicting them under the guise of public safety.

The respondents contended that the building was over 100 years old; notices under Sections 309 and 310 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 were issued to the Trust, but no remedial measures were taken, whereupon Section 152 BNSS proceedings were initiated, supported by reports of the Structural Engineer, the PWD Sub-Divisional Officer, the Tehsildar and the Municipal Corporation, all recording that the structure was unfit for habitation.

The petitioners thereupon invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashment of both orders.

1. Whether the proceedings under Section 152 BNSS were a colourable exercise of power intended to settle a civil dispute relating to title and tenancy, rendering the impugned orders arbitrary and illegal.

2. Whether the impugned orders dated 16.01.2026 and 14.03.2026 were passed in violation of Section 152 BNSS and the principles of natural justice, having been founded on unilateral technical reports.

3. Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the dangerous condition of the building warranted interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023, characterising the Magistrate's jurisdiction thereunder as preventive in nature, intended to remove imminent danger and public nuisance.

Section 528 BNSS... holding that the scope of interference thereunder is limited and is warranted only where impugned orders disclose patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or abuse of the process of law, and that the Court would not substitute its own satisfaction for that of the statutory authorities.

The existence of civil litigation regarding title or tenancy does not denude the competent authority of its statutory power to take preventive measures against dangerous structures, provided the proceedings do not adjudicate ownership or tenancy rights.

Sections 309 and 310 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, under which statutory notices were issued to the Trust prior to the BNSS proceedings.

Applying the preventive character of Section 152 BNSS to the record, the Court found that the material before the authorities—comprising reports of the Structural Engineer, the Public Works Department, the Tehsildar and the Municipal Corporation—consistently opined that the building was more than a century old, structurally weak, unsafe for habitation and likely to collapse, endangering both its occupants and the general public, since it abutted a busy public road.

The Court rejected the contention of colourable exercise, reasoning that the pendency of civil litigation concerning title or tenancy does not, by itself, strip the authority of its statutory power to act against a dangerous structure, particularly where the proceedings are confined to preventing public nuisance and do not adjudicate ownership or tenancy, which rights remain open before the competent civil forum.

The Court held that natural justice was not violated, as the record demonstrated that objections were filed after the preliminary order, the petitioners availed writ and statutory revisional remedies pursuant to liberty granted by this Court, and the Revisional Court considered their submissions; mere disagreement with the correctness of expert reports could not justify interference in the face of concurrent findings recorded on technical evidence.

On the third issue, the Court found no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or abuse of process, since the orders were supported by contemporaneous inspection reports, expert opinions and the statutory scheme governing removal of dangerous structures.

No violation of the principles of natural justice was made out.

No ground existed for interference under Section 528 BNSS with the order dated 16.01.2026 of the City Magistrate, Sagar or the revisional orders dated 14.03.2026 of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.

Consequently, M.Cr.C. Nos. 14969/2026, 13911/2026 and 14795/2026 were dismissed, and any interim order operating in these matters stood vacated.