Madhya Pradesh High Court
Purushottam Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 19807 of 2025
PURUSHOTTAM SOLANKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 13.08.2025)
(Pronounced on 01.09.2025)
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.03.2023 passed
by the appeal committee of respondents 2 and 3 and also the impugned
notice dated 16.05.2025.
2. As per the petitioner, he and his family members are residing in a
property situated at house No.47 and 48, new No.70-71, Ram Mandir
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
Ahilyapura Main Road, Indore for past 100 years. The aforesaid
property is ancestral and came in their possession by way of a transfer
deed dated 09.07.2012. Since the construction was very old and in a
dilapidated condition they started its repair work. However a notice
dated 05.09.2020 was issued to petitioner by respondents 2 and 3
calling upon him to submit a lay out plan and title documents. The
petitioner stated in his reply that he is not raising any new construction
but is doing repair work. Due to heavy rains there was water logging in
the house and the roof had also been damaged which needed repair but
due to undue influence with intention to dispossess the petitioner and
his family members the notice was issued.
3. The petitioner then preferred W.P. No.12174/2021 before this
Court challenging the notice. By order dated 21.12.2021 the said
petition was dismissed by this Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.109/2022 before the
Division Bench of this Court which was disposed off by order dated
21.02.2023 observing that the petitioner has already preferred an
application for compounding on 11.01.2022 which deserves to be
directed to be decided. The said application has already been rejected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
by respondents 2 and 3 on 21.11.2022 appeal against which is pending
before the appeal committee. The appeal committee was directed to
decide the appeal in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter the appeal committee heard the appeal preferred by
the petitioner against the order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure P/4) passed
by the building officer rejecting his application for compounding. By
order dated 16.03.2023 the appeal was dismissed by the appeal
committee. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for review
of the said order of the appeal committee which too has been dismissed
by order dated 15.03.2024. Eventually notice has been issued by the
building officer to the petitioner on 16.05.2025 directing him to remove
his illegal construction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has not raised any illegal construction. His application for
compounding has been illegally dismissed by respondents 2 and 3. The
petitioner is residing in the property for more than 100 years. He is only
doing repair work which did not include any new construction. There is
hence no illegal construction. The documents submitted by the
petitioner have not been duly taken into consideration. The appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
committee has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by passing a
slipshod order. The application for compounding has not been duly
considered. The illegal construction was to be considered but right and
title of the petitioner has been considered. The application for
compounding could not have been rejected on the ground of want of
title. The petitioner has duly raised his construction which cannot be
demolished.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
the construction which is being made by the petitioner is not a
reconstruction of the old dilapidated structure but is a fresh construction
hence direction has rightly been issued for removal of the same. The
application of the petitioner for compounding has been duly considered
and rejected by respondents 2 and 3 in which no error can be found.
The petitioner does not have any title to the disputed property. He is
only claiming on the basis of a power of attorney executed by the
previous owner who has already expired hence the same no longer has
any legal effect. The petition hence deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
8. In the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner against the
notice dated 25.06.2021 it was categorically held by this Court that he
is claiming title by virtue of a power of attorney given to him by one
Nandkishore. No document has been filed to show ownership of
Nandkishore. The Court had appointed Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi,
Advocate as a Commissioner to visit the spot and submit spot
inspection report as to whether petitioner is raising new construction or
is doing repair work. The Commissioner submitted his report dated
14.12.2021 to the effect that new construction at the back side of
premises ad-measuring 600-700 sq.ft. is there. Finding that the
petitioner is not having any permission to raise construction on the land
in question the petition was dismissed. The said order has not been
interfered with by the writ appellate Court which disposed off the
appeal preferred by the petitioner by merely observing that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the building
officer rejecting his application for compounding be decided in
accordance with law. The finding as regards petitioner not having any
title and new construction being raised by him hence attained finality.
9. At this stage it would be pertinent to mention that in this petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure
P/4) passed by the building officer whereby his application for
compounding has been rejected. The petitioner has also not challenged
the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the appeal committee whereby the
application for review of the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by it has
been rejected.
10. Be that as it may, the petitioner is claiming title by virtue of a
power of attorney executed in his favour by one Nandkishore. No
document of ownership of Nandkishore is available on record. The only
claim to the property by the petitioner is by virtue of the power of
attorney. The petitioner had instituted Civil Suit No.98-A/2015 before
17th Civil Judge, Class-I, District Indore for declaration of his title to
the disputed property which has been dismissed by judgment and
decree dated 06.04.2016. The petitioner contends the house to be more
than 150 years old but no document in that regard was produced. No
sanctioned map for the construction has been filed by the petitioner. The
fact that it is a new construction which is being done by the petitioner
has already been found in the previous writ petition. The new
construction without sanction or building permission is apparently
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
illegal. The house is numbered 47/48, Ahilyapura. It is in the name of
Shri Ram Temple which has deposited property tax in respect of only
1485 sq.ft. but no tax has been deposited in respect of the remaining
area nor has any document of title been produced.
11. In any case the only semblance of title of the petitioner is the
power of attorney executed in his favour by Nandkishore, who has
already expired with whose death the power of attorney automatically
came to an end. No independent title to the property has been
demonstrated by the petitioner. In absence of any title being shown the
application for compounding could not have been allowed. For
claiming compounding of construction prima facie firstly the title over
the legal part of the construction has to be demonstrated so as to claim
compounding of the unauthorized construction. As stated above no
document of title has been produced by the petitioner and it has been
found earlier that new construction is being made by him. Rejection of
his application for compounding by respondents 2 and 3 hence cannot
be said to be unjustified.
12. The notice dated 16.05.2025 is not an independent order but is
only issued in continuation of the previous proceedings against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24404
petitioner hence its legality is not required to be considered
independently.
13. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground
having been made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by
respondents 2 and 3 and the appeal committee. The petition is found to
be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
