[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Marlin Buildcon Pvt Ltd Through Satpal ... vs Muncipal Corporation on 5 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-37713-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 37713 of 2025
(MARLIN BUILDCON PVT LTD THROUGH SATPAL SINGH Vs MUNCIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS )
Dated : 05-02-2026
Shri Pramod Thakre - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Deputy Solicitor General with Shri
Hindesh Pal - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Lal Ji Kushwaha - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
In pursuance to the order dated 27.01.2026, Ms. Sanskriti Jain,
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhopal is present before this Court.
The counsel for respondents has pointed out that they are filing an affidavit
tendering unconditional apology; however, the said affidavit is not filed
when the matter was taken up even in the second round and even by 4.30
p.m.
When the case was taken up in the first round, the counsel for
respondent-Corporation was put a specific question that whether the property
which has been demolished by the respondents illegally can be restored by
them. He took some time to have a discussion with the authorities and
requested to take up the matter at 4.30 p.m. The counsel as well as the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhopal, who is present before this
Court, has stated that demolition of the property was justified because it was
an illegal construction. The sanction granted for construction of property was
already cancelled by the authorities vide order dated 07.11.2024 and
thereafter, the notice dated 14.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 05-02-2026
19:05:07
2 WP-37713-2025
thereafter the entire action has been taken against the petitioner and front
portion of MOS constructed by the petitioner contrary to the sanction, has
been demolished on 18.11.2025. She further submits that as the construction
was illegal, therefore, the property cannot be restored. Her statement is
placed on record.
This Court has already passed two detailed orders on 23.01.2026 and
27.01.2026 after considering all the arguments raised before this Court by the
respondents. On 27.01.2026, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
Bhopal was heard through video conferencing. The entire arguments were
dealt with by the Court and the Court arrived at a conclusion that demolition
of front portion of MOS constructed by the petitioner was illegal and
contrary to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (In Ref.) reported in
(2025) 5 SCC 1.
This Court was ready to accept the unconditional apology tendered
orally before this Court on the concession that the demolished portion of the
property should be restored by the authorities. However, after detailed
discussions, they have categorically stated before this Court that the
demolition cannot be restored.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions in the Matter of
Demolition of Structures (In Ref.) (supra) has laid down certain guidelines,
particularly Guidelines No. 94.5, 94.7, 94.8, 94.8, 94.9, 94.10 and 94.11,
which are important, read as under :-
...
94.5. The notice shall contain the details regarding: (a) The nature of
the unauthorised construction. (b) The details of the specific violation
3 WP-37713-2025
and the grounds of demolition. (c) A list of documents that the noticee
is required to furnish along with his reply. (d) The notice should also
specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the
designated authority before whom the hearing will take place.
..
B. Personal hearing
94.7. The designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal
hearing to the person concerned.
94.8. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded.
C. Final order
94.9. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final order.
94.10. The final order shall contain: (a) The contentions of the noticee,
and if the designated authority disagrees with the same, the reasons
thereof. (b) As to whether the unauthorised construction is
compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor. (c) If the designated
authority finds that only part of the construction is unauthorised/non-
compoundable, then the details thereof. (d) As to why the extreme step
of demolition is the only option available and other options like
compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not
available.
D. An opportunity of appellate and judicial scrutiny of the final order
94.11. We further direct that if the statute provides for an appellate
opportunity and time for filing the same, or even if it does not so, the
order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal
as stated above.
..."
In the light of the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, if the notice dated 14.05.2025 is seen, the same reflects that
earlier notice dated 06.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing for
stopping the construction with immediate effect, failing which the action
under Section 307(2) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 will be
initiated. Thereafter, on 14.05.2025, a notice was issued to the petitioner
asking for reply within three days, failing which extreme steps of demolition
of property will be initiated. The petitioner thereafter on 16.05.2025 has
submitted an application for compounding but the said application was
4 WP-37713-2025
returned back directing for removal of the front portion of MOS contrary to
the sanctioned plan and thereafter the application for compounding will be
considered.
The directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear and
cogent and the same have not been complied with by the authorities in the
present case. Prior to taking extreme steps of demolition of property, the
authorities are required to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner in terms of Direction No. 94.7 (above). They are required to record
the minutes of such hearing and thereafter, pass a final order. Direction No.
94.10 gives a description of contents to be mentioned in the final order.
Thereafter, Direction No. 94.11 comes into play and prior to taking extreme
steps of demolition of property, an opportunity to approach the appellate
forum should be granted. Nothing has been done by the authorities.
After issuance of notice dated 14.05.2025, no action was taken by the
authorities for a considerable long time and thereafter on 18.11.2025, the
extreme steps of demolition of front portion of property was taken and on the
same day, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to demolish the
illegal construction raised by the petitioner himself within seven days and the
reasons assigned in the said notice are that due to paucity of time, the entire
illegal construction cannot be demolished. The contents of notice dated
18.11.2025 show intention of the authorities that they were bent upon to
demolish the alleged illegal construction raised by the petitioner. The
argument that only front portion of the property which was illegally
constructed has been demolished as was reflected from notice dated
5 WP-37713-2025
14.05.2025 will be of no help to the authorities as they themselves have
mentioned that ".... समयाभाव के कारण थल पर कये अवैध िनमाण को पूण प से नह ं हटाया
जा सका। "
Apart from the aforesaid, the respondents-authorities were aware of
the fact that this Court is already seized with the matter, coupled with the fact
that a civil suit with respect to the property in question has already been filed
and pending adjudication before the competent civil court; therefore, prior to
taking any extreme steps of demolition of property, permission from the
Court should have been taken by the authorities. However, no such
permission has been taken.
Under these circumstances, this Court holds the Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Bhopal guilty of flouting with the directions/orders
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Demolition of
Structures (In Ref.) reported in (2025) 5 SCC 1 under the provisions of
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and she is required to be
heard on the question of quantum of punishment.
List the matter on 06.02.2026 at 10.30 a.m. for consideration on
argument on the quantum of punishment.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
