01Facts
The petitioner challenged the Chief Municipal Officer’s order dated 13.04.2022 directing removal of an alleged encroachment on government land adjoining a road in Sadar Bazar, Bhind.
pp. 1–2He claimed ownership under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1976 and relied on permission for construction granted in 1984. He also argued that the authority had not properly considered his reply to a show-cause notice and had incorrectly assessed the road alignment and alleged encroachment.
pp. 1–2The respondents relied on a March 2022 demarcation, which allegedly found that the petitioner’s construction encroached approximately 10 feet and 4 inches onto government land, and disputed that a timely reply had been filed.
pp. 2–3The petition had been pending since 2022, with interim protection against the proposed action operating from 28.04.2022.
p. 402Issues
i.1. Whether, in view of the passage of time and the continuing interim protection, the impugned removal order should be quashed without adjudicating the merits of the alleged encroachment.
p. 4ii.2. Whether the authority could be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings, subject to providing the petitioner a hearing and considering his objections and documents.
p. 503Law Applied
The Court proceeded under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
pp. 4–5The order requires that any fresh proceedings afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, consider his objections and supporting documents, and conclude with a reasoned order in accordance with law.
p. 504Reasoning
The Court noted that the petition had remained pending since 2022 and that interim protection against the proposed demolition had continued throughout. It considered that, in those circumstances, the impugned order had lost its efficacy by passage of time and that continued adjudication of the factual dispute would serve no useful purpose.
p. 4Accordingly, it resolved the petition without deciding whether an encroachment existed or whether the petitioner’s title, construction permission, or the demarcation report was legally or factually sound.
pp. 4–505Holding
The Court quashed the order dated 13.04.2022 because it had lost its efficacy in light of the passage of time and the continuing interim protection.
p. 5It allowed and disposed of the petition, while granting the Chief Municipal Officer liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and issue a fresh notice, if warranted. Any such proceedings must include a reasonable opportunity of hearing, consideration of the petitioner’s objections and relevant documents, and a reasoned order in accordance with law. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.
p. 5Original Court PDF
Ram Prakash AgarwalvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
