[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh Kathil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64218
1 WP-46503-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 46503 of 2025
MUKESH KATHIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Sahni - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) To issue appropriate writ/order/direction and call for the entire
records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 17.10.2025;
(ii) To issue appropriate writ/order/directions and quash the impugned
notices 17.10.2025 (Annexure-P/8);
(iii) To issue appropriate writ/order/directions to the respondents that
they shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of the shop of the
petitioner.
(iv) To issue any other writ, order or direction deemed fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case and direct to the
respondents to bear the cost of this petition.
2. The challenge in this petition is made to the impugned notice
(Annexure P/8) whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide
documents with respect to the shop in question within 48 hours failing which
coercive action shall be taken against him.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court
to the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 59A of 2014 on
30.06.2017 (Annexure P/4) wherein the petitioner has been declared as a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64218
2 WP-46503-2025
tenant and it was observed that he cannot be evicted without following the
due process of law. Thereafter, the Red Cross Society has sought permission
to construct the shop in question from the Municipal Council Tikamgarh.
4. It is a specific case of the petitioner that once the Red Cross Society
has constructed the shop in question then how a notice regarding
encroachment made by the petitioner has been given by the Municipal
Council. The petitioner has submitted the detailed reply in terms of
Annexure P/9 to the notice issued to him; however, the authorities/Municipal
Council are giving threatening to the petitioner regarding demolition of the
shop in question. It is submitted that until and unless the decision is taken by
the authorities after going through the reply filed by the petitioner and giving
opportunity of hearing, no such demolition proceedings can be initiated
against him.
5. The record reflects that the notice has been issued to the petitioner on
the pretext that apart from the constructed area, he has encroached on the
public way by extending the construction and making a temporary
construction for which the impugned notice has been issued. He has
submitted a detailed reply to the said notice on which no final decision is
taken by the authorities. There cannot be any demolition of the property of
the petitioner without any final decision taken by the
respondents/authorities.
6. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the
respondent No.6/Municipal Council through CMO Tikamgarh to take a final
decision after going through the reply submitted by the petitioner in terms of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:64218
3 WP-46503-2025
Annexure P/9 and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till the
final decision is taken by the authorities in pursuance to the notice
(Annexure P/8) issued to the petitioner, no coercive action regarding
demolition to take place with respect to the property in question.
7. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
8. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
