Court Orders Joint Inspection and Hearing to Adjudicate Demarcation Dispute and Prevents Coercive Action.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Notice No. IMC/Zone-19/Ward-76/2026/3006/4 dated 07.07.2026 issued by the Building Officer, Indore Municipal Corporation

The petitioner sought to quash the notice and requested a fresh, scientific, and impartial demarcation of a proposed road on government land situated on Khasra No. 164

During the proceedings, the Indore Municipal Corporation suggested a joint inspection and a structured timeline for filing objections and hearing to resolve the dispute

1. Whether the impugned notice issued by the Building Officer was illegal and arbitrary, necessitating a fresh demarcation of the subject land

2. Whether a court-mandated timeline for joint inspection and administrative hearing is a viable remedy to ensure natural justice for the petitioner

The court primarily exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights

The court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard), by ensuring the petitioner had an opportunity to participate in a joint inspection, file objections, and receive a reasoned order from the Competent Authority

It further observed the administrative role of the Building Officer under the relevant Municipal Corporation laws as the "Competent Authority" for resolving building and site disputes

The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the demarcation or the legality of the notice at this stage. Instead, it adopted a consensus-based procedural approach proposed by the respondents

The court reasoned that a joint inspection involving the petitioner, the Revenue Department, and the Town Country Planning (TCP) Department would resolve factual disputes regarding land demarcation scientificially and impartially

By mandating that a report be supplied to the petitioner and setting a strict calendar for hearing and decision-making, the court ensured that the State’s administrative actions remain transparent and subject to due process

The court further protected the petitioner’s right to seek judicial review by granting a "cooling period" against coercive action

The Court held that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner until 21/08/2026 to allow for the availing of further legal remedies

The petition was disposed of with directions for mutual cooperation