Occupancy rights of municipal lessees cannot stall the demolition of dilapidated buildings in the interest of public safety.

The petitioners, recognized municipal shopkeepers for several decades, challenged a series of notices and resolutions (dated June and July 2026) issued by the respondent Municipality regarding the demolition of their shops for redevelopment

In an earlier round of litigation (WP No. 20668/2022), the Court had directed the authorities to act in accordance with the law

The Municipality contended that multiple technical reports from the PWD and Ujjain Polytechnic College declared the building structurally dangerous and beyond repair

During the pendency of the dispute, most petitioners vacated their premises and handed over possession via Panchanama

The petitioners sought a stay on demolition until a formal rehabilitation-cum-reallotment agreement was executed under the 2016 Rules

1. Whether the respondent Municipality is required to finalize individual rehabilitation and re-allotment agreements under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rules, 2016, as a condition precedent to taking possession and demolishing dangerous structures

2. Whether the eviction and sealing of shops violated the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India

Section 221 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which empowers the Council to demolish ruinous or dangerous buildings to protect public safety, including summary demolition without notice in cases of "imminent danger"

Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rules, 2016, which governs the settlement and allocation of new shops to existing shopkeepers when an Urban Local Body constructs new facilities on its land

The Court observed that technical experts consistently found the structure in a "most dangerous condition," exacerbated by the monsoon season, necessitating urgent demolition for public safety under Section 221

While Rule 10 provides a framework for rehabilitation, the Court held that the petitioners cannot compel the Municipality to finalize specific allotments before the old structure is demolished and the new one is built

The Court found that the petitioners’ interests were substantially protected as the Municipality had resolved to accommodate the 13 existing shopkeepers in the redeveloped complex

Furthermore, because the petitioners had already handed over possession and signed Panchanamas, their claims of "forcible eviction" were deemed disputed questions of fact and they were held to be estopped from resisting demolition

The court prioritized public interest and safety over the petitioners' demand for immediate contractual certainties

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent authority acted lawfully based on expert safety reports and that no interim relief was warranted as possession had already been surrendered