Hinesh Chhabra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 11151 MP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11151 MP
Judgement Date : 14 November, 2025

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hinesh Chhabra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2025

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57784




                                                                     1                                     WP-44520-2025
                                IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                   ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                   WRIT PETITION No. 44520 of 2025
                                                     HINESH CHHABRA
                                                          Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                Shri Aditya Awasthi - Advocate for petitioner.
                                Shri A.S. Baghel - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

                                Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for respondent No.4.

                                                                         ORDER

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's legally occupied property or any portion thereof;

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and set aside the impugned notice dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P5);

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus and direct respondents to undertake proper demarcation of the road in question for determining the road centre before demolition under the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961;

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus and restrain the respondents from demolishing or dispossessing the petitioner from their shop;

(v) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The challenge in this petition is made to the impugned notice whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the unauthorized construction raised by him within 15 days, failing which coercive action shall be taken against him.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57784

2 WP-44520-2025 to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3210 wherein certain directions/guidelines have been issued in context of the road widening. It is submitted that in the present case, the said guidelines are not followed by the authorities. The petitioner has already submitted reply to the show cause notice before the authorities but as far as the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 30 thereof, they are required to be followed by the authorities. He has also placed reliance upon the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 4384 of 2025 dated 07.02.2025.

4. In the case of Manoj Tibrewal Akash (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under :

30. Before acting in pursuance of a road widening project, the State or its instrumentalities must:

(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;

(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing records/maps;

(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment;

(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;

(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or court; and

(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the road widening exercise.

5. Counsels appearing for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid proposition and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57784

3 WP-44520-2025 binding upon the authorities. It is submitted that prior to taking extreme steps, the authorities are duty bound to follow the aforesaid guidelines.

6. Under these circumstances, prior to taking any extreme steps by the authorities, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Tibrewal Akash (supra) are required to be followed. The respondents- authorities are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions/guidelines prior to taking any action for demolition of the property in question. Till the aforesaid directions/guidelines are complied with, no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

7. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE