Disputed dangerous-building demolition issues must first be examined by competent municipal authorities under statutory procedure.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a property at Ward No. 7, House No. 92, Maidan Gali No. 1, Chanderi, Ashoknagar, which had devolved upon her by inheritance and stood mutated in her name.

She asserted that the approximately 400-year-old building had become weak, ruinous and dangerous to its occupants, neighbouring residents and the public.

The Municipal authorities issued notices dated 7 August 2024 and 12 June 2025 under Section 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, requiring demolition of the dilapidated structure.

The petitioner stated that she was willing to cooperate with the demolition and bear the expenses under Section 221(4), but alleged that unauthorized occupants were obstructing safe demolition.

Despite replies and representations dated 12 August 2024, 25 June 2025, 21 July 2025, 7 January 2026 and 12 January 2026, the petitioner alleged that no effective action had been taken by the Municipal authorities.

She therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Municipal authorities to act upon the notices and demolish the building.

1. Whether the High Court should issue a writ directing the Municipal authorities to implement the notices issued under Section 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and demolish the allegedly dangerous building.

2. Whether the issues concerning the condition of the building, the status and evacuation of alleged unauthorized occupants, and the manner and legality of demolition should first be examined by the competent Municipal authority.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, recognising that writ jurisdiction may be exercised to require a statutory authority to consider and decide a grievance in accordance with law, but not ordinarily to determine disputed factual and administrative matters in the first instance.

It relied upon Section 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which empowers the Municipal authority to take action concerning dangerous or dilapidated buildings, and Section 221(4), which contemplates recovery of demolition-related expenses from the owner or occupier.

The competent Municipal authority must follow the statutory procedure and consider public safety, including the safety of occupants, neighbouring residents and the general public.

The Court found that the petition involved factual and administrative determinations, including the actual condition of the building, the existence and status of the alleged unauthorized occupants, the need for their evacuation, the manner in which demolition should be conducted, and compliance with the statutory procedure.

These matters were considered appropriate for initial examination by the competent Municipal authority under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, rather than for direct adjudication by the High Court in writ proceedings.

Although the petitioner expressed willingness to bear the expenses and relied on the existing notices under Section 221, the Court did not decide the merits of the alleged danger or the petitioner’s entitlement to demolition.

Instead, it directed that the statutory authority consider the grievance and relevant material in accordance with law, while keeping public safety in view.

It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned Municipal Council or competent Municipal authority with a copy of the order and relevant documents.

If approached, the authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s grievance and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

No direct mandamus for immediate demolition or evacuation of the alleged unauthorized occupants was issued.