Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26797
1 WP-18834-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18834 of 2025
ARUN KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivam Prajapati - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to Respondents
No.3 to 6 to reconstruct the house of the Petitioner.
II. A command to Respondents to give compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs only) with interest to the
Petitioner.
III. Issue any other writs or directions as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the disputed property
bearing Khasra No.741/5 from one Bechu Lal Kewat by registered sale-deed dated
30.06.2018. He applied for construction of the house for residential purpose on
26.10.2018 and the permission was granted vide order dated 10.01.2019. He was
asked to get NOC from the Nazul Officer, which was granted to him on
21.12.2020. Vide order dated 01.02.2019 the respondent No.4 granted permission
to the petitioner for construction of his house. On account of financial crunch, the
petitioner applied for loan for completion of remaining construction of the house.
Vide order dated 02.09.2024 the loan was sanctioned to him. The Municipal
Council, Kotma issued notices to the petitioner on 11.11.2022 and 20.12.2022.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26797
2 WP-18834-2025
The petitioner replied the same on 20.12.2022. The respondent No.4 again issued
a notice dated 17.04.2025, but the same was never sent to the petitioner. On
01.05.2025 the petitioner was shown the said notice on whatsApp to which the
petitioner submitted reply on 01.05.2025, but without considering the reply
submitted by the petitioner the house of the petitioner was demolished by the
respondents with the help of bulldozer. It is submitted that the petitioner has
already shown the entire documents to the authorities but they have not taken note
of the same and have demolished the house of the petitioner. Therefore, he has
filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to
pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs along with interest to the petitioner.
He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Zulfiquar Haider and anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (Civil
Appeal No.4590 of 2025, dated 01.04.2025) and the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Jagdish Prasad vs. Dewas
Municipal Corporation and others (Writ Petition No.38618 of 2024, dated
06.12.2024).
3. The fact remains that the action of demolition was taken place after notice
was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner himself has submitted that he has filed
reply to the show cause notice when the same was issued to him on whatsApp and
thereafter, the action was taken to demolish the house of the petitioner.
4. The Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior Bench in the case of Rasul
Khan vs. State of M.P. (Writ Appeal No.1253 of 2020, dated 21.12.2020) has held
that no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable
seeking compensation. The remedy is elsewhere. The relevant portion of the
judgment is as under: -
"From perusal of the record, it is seen that admitted position in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26797
3 WP-18834-2025
the present case is that the petitioner had approached State Govt.
for financial help for surgery and cochlear implant of both of his
sons. The amount was sanctioned by the State Govt. and cheque
was issued in favour of the hospital but unfortunately, the cheque
was dishonored and on the complaint being made by the hospital
against the petitioner, FIR was got registered which on
investigation was found to be false, therefore, the petitioner was
discharged. But during aforesaid period of investigation, the sons
have attained majority and now, there cannot be any surgery or
cochlear implant done due to their attaining majority. The most
unfortunate part of the entire case is that the financial
assistance/help issued by the State Govt. in favour of the petitioner
could not be extended to him owing to the reason that cheque
issued has been dishonored. Now, sons of the petitioner could not
get cochlear implant done and they have to live entire life with the
ear ailment. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred writ petition
claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.80 lac. It is settled
principles of law that compensation cannot be claimed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a matter of right. Three
Judges Bench of Supreme court in the case of Hindustan Paper
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ananta Bhattacharya and Others reported in
(2004) Volume 6 SCC 213 has held that public remedy for the
purpose of grant of compensation can be resorted to only when the
fundamental rights of a citizen are violated under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and not otherwise. It has further been held that
it is not every violation of provisions of Constitution or statute
which could enable the court to direct for grant of compensation.
The power of the court of judicial review to grant compensation to
public remedy is limited. In other words, the power to grant
compensation is confined only to the cases of violation of
fundamental rights.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Uphar
Tragedy Victims Association and others reported in (2011) Volume
14 SCC 481, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that public law
causes of action to claim compensation for breach of fundamental
right is described as constitutional tort and in such cases,
constitutional courts are expected to vindicate the parties
constitutionally, compensate them for resulting harm and also to
defer future misconduct. However, this public law
power/constitutional Courts to grant compensation is seldom
exercise merely due to violation of some statutory provisions
resulting in monetary loss to the claimants. In most of the cases
such powers are exercised where there is intense serious violation
of personal liberty, right to life or violation of human rights.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26797
4 WP-18834-2025
In the case of Rajendra Singh Pathaniya and others Vs. State of
NCT New Delhi reported in (2011) volume 13 SCC 329, it has been
held that the court can award compensation for violation of
fundamental rights against the State Govt. or a public servant only
after making proper inquiry. From aforesaid initiation of law, it is
evident that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India of public law remedy for the purpose of grant of
compensation can be resorted to only in the cases of violation of
fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.
After going through the entire pleadings and considering the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that as the
petitioner has prayed for compensation which cannot be granted
under Article 226 of the Constitution India, therefore, no illegality
is said to have been committed by the writ court. Accordingly,
finding no merit in the writ appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
However, liberty is extended to the petitioner/appellant to approach
appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance."
5. If the aforesaid judgment is applied to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, no relief can be extended to the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner can approach the competent authorities or the
concerning Court for redressal of his grievances.
6. The writ petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
THK
