01Facts
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 30 October 2026 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad Indergarh, alleging encroachment.
He contended that the notice did not identify the land by location, khasra number, boundaries, or area.
Although he had submitted a reply, he apprehended coercive action and sought to quash the notice, prevent demolition, and obtain consideration of his reply after a hearing.
The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh, comprehensive reply and the authority to determine the matter after hearing him.
02Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the alleged lack of particulars in the encroachment notice warranted quashing the notice or other relief under Articles 226/227.
ii.Whether the petitioner should be protected from coercive action while the authority considers his reply and determines the alleged encroachment.
03Law Applied
The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court directed that the petitioner receive an effective opportunity of hearing and that the competent authority decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
The order cites no statute, precedent, or further legal test governing encroachment proceedings.
04Reasoning
In light of the petitioner’s complaint that the notice did not specify the allegedly encroached land, the Court directed the authority to examine the petitioner’s property documents alongside relevant revenue and municipal records, and to ascertain the location, khasra number, boundaries, and area of the land in question.
It required a hearing and a reasoned decision, while expressly leaving the merits of the encroachment allegations open.
05Holding
The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner file a fresh, comprehensive reply within 15 days; the authority then provide an effective hearing, ascertain the relevant land particulars, and issue a reasoned order within a further four weeks of receiving the reply.
Until that process is completed and a final decision is made, no coercive action, including demolition or removal of the petitioner’s house, may be taken pursuant to the notice.
No order was made as to costs.
Original Court PDF
Rahul RajoriyavsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
