MP HC Lets Sealed Hospital Operator Retrieve Equipment, But Leaves Unauthorised-Construction Notice Intact After No Reply To Earlier Notice

M/s USM Health Care operated a hospital in premises leased from the M.P. Red Cross Society.

The Corporation sealed the premises on 7 October 2026 and issued the impugned notice on 8 October 2026 requiring removal of alleged unauthorised construction.

The petitioner had not replied to or challenged an earlier notice dated 21 August 2026, and treated the impugned notice as a continuation of it.

Section 301(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 concerns action in relation to unlawful use or occupation; Section 303(1) empowers the Commissioner to direct removal of a person from a building in which works are unlawfully carried on or which is unlawfully occupied; and Section 403 provides an appellate remedy under the Act.

The Court referred to Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, for the principle that unauthorised construction cannot be legitimised or protected merely by lapse of time, official inaction, or expenditure on the construction, and must be dealt with in accordance with law.

The Court observed that the petitioner had pursued a Section 403 appeal against the earlier vacating order, but had not responded to or challenged the separate 21 August 2026 notice that the Court understood to precede and inform the impugned notice concerning unauthorised construction.

On that basis, it held that the petitioner was precluded at this stage from questioning the 8 October notice and declined to interfere with it.

However, because the premises had been sealed and the petitioner claimed that medical equipment and machinery were inside, the Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to remove its movable belongings, subject to the pending appeal.

It directed the petitioner to appear before the Corporation on 18 November 2026, which was to permit removal of movable belongings and prepare a mutually acknowledged inventory; an additional day was to be allowed if removal could not be completed in one day.

Removal was made subject to the outcome of the pending Section 403 appeal.

Thereafter, the Corporation could proceed in accordance with law, subject to orders of the Appellate Committee; if the petitioner failed to appear, the Corporation could also proceed in accordance with law.