Madhya Pradesh High Court Administrative and Public Law Property and Real Estate Law

MP HC Quashes Bhind Order To Remove Alleged Encroachment After 4 Years Of Interim Protection, Allows Fresh Proceedings

Chakresh Jainv.The State Of Madhya Pradesh

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 28, 2026Published 30 October 2026 at 12:45 am IST2 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether the impugned order directing removal of the alleged encroachment should be set aside in light of the interim protection continuing during the pendency of the petition and the passage of time.

The court held

The Court quashed the order dated 12 April 2022 and allowed and disposed of the petition, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

It also directed

It granted the Chief Municipal Officer liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and issue a fresh notice, if appropriate, provided the petitioner receives a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the authority considers his objections and supporting documents before passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an order dated 12 April 2022 directing removal of an alleged encroachment. He asserted ownership under a registered sale deed dated 1 September 1972 and relied on construction permission granted in 2018. He also contended that his reply to the show-cause notice and supporting documents had not been properly considered, and that the demarcation report was inaccurate. The respondents maintained that the order followed a survey and demarcation that disclosed encroachment on government land.

pp. 1–4

The Court had granted interim protection on 4 May 2022, which remained in force while the petition was pending.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the impugned order directing removal of the alleged encroachment should be set aside in light of the interim protection continuing during the pendency of the petition and the passage of time.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the Court should determine the parties’ disputed claims concerning encroachment, title, possession, and the accuracy of the demarcation report.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The Court considered the matter in its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

p. 1

It permitted fresh proceedings, if warranted, subject to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, consideration of the petitioner’s objections and documents, and a reasoned order in accordance with law.

pp. 4–6

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petition had been pending since 2022 and that interim protection against the proposed action had continued throughout. It therefore considered the demolition drive under the 2022 order to have lost its efficacy and found no useful purpose in adjudicating the competing factual claims about encroachment, ownership, possession, or demarcation.

pp. 4–5

The Court left those matters open, while requiring that any fresh proceedings comply with fair-hearing requirements and result in a reasoned decision.

p. 6