[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nimesh Shrivastav vs Municipal Corporation on 26 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-6295-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 6295 of 2026
(NIMESH SHRIVASTAV Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS )
Dated : 26-02-2026
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth
Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/ State.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven
working days by RAD mode, failing which, this petition shall stand
dismissed without further reference to the Court.
Heard on the question of interim relief.
It is pointed out that after facing a series of litigations which travelled
up to the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.15824/2018 which was
disposed of vide order dated 31.8.2023 wherein the directions were issued in
the following terms :-
(i) Impugned order dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure P/12)
passed by S.D.O. is set aside.
(ii) The S.D.O. is directed to pass fresh orders in terms
of evidence and material in shape of reports of various
State functionaries as mentioned in the order dated
28.04.2018 and thereafter pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within a period of two months of
date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iii) Since petitioner has been subjected to a prolonged
and unnecessary and avoidable piece of limitation,
petitioner is entitled to cost of this petition which is
quantified as Rs.25,000/- out of which Rs.15,000/- shall
be paid to petitioner and remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be
paid to M.P. High Court Employees Association,
Jabalpur (SB A/c No.519302010000235, Union Bank of
India, High Court, Jabalpur for having wasted precious
time of the Court which could have been utilized in
more pressing matters. The cost be deposited within a
2 WP-6295-2026
period of 30 days failing which matter be listed as PUD
qua cost.
(iv) Since S.D.O. Kotwali, Jabalpur has abdicated his
statutory duty, cost of this litigation is saddled on the
said officer alone to be recovered from him without
being demitted to public exchequer.
(v) Till S.D.O. Kotwali, Jabalpur passes a fresh order in
terms of this judgment, the order of injunction passed
on 20.03.2017(Annexure P/6) by S.D.O. Kotwal,
Jabalpur shall hold the field."
Thereafter, the proceedings were taken up by the respondents
authorities and the order dated 20.2.2025 has been passed. The contempt
petition being Conc Petition No. 4322/2024 filed by the petitioner for non-
compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court was
disposed off as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the proceedings before
the appropriate forum vide order dated 11.2.2026. In the order passed by the
Division Bench, there was an observation that the interim order granted on
20.3.2017 by the SDO, Kotwali, Jabalpur shall continue till a fresh order is
passed by the SDO, Kotwali, Jabalpur. Now, the fresh order has been passed
which is under challenge in this writ petition. By the said order, the petitioner
has been declared as encroacher of the property in question.
On perusal of the order, it is seen that the SDO has observed as under
:-
"यहां यह प है क ववा दत े A,B,C,D आम रा ता
नह ं है ब क यह मं दर के दशनािथयो या ालुओं के िलए
है तथा A,B,C,D पूर तरह से र है । इस पर ना तो चबुतरा
बना है न ह ट न शेड है ।"
From perusal of the aforesaid wording in the impugned order, it is
clear that it is self contradictory.
It is further pointed out that thereafter, the office bearers of the Temple
Samity have put a gate on the said road and locked the same. The right to
3 WP-6295-2026
way of the petitioner has been obstructed by such act of the private
respondents no. 5 to 9 who are members of the temple samiti.
As there was an interim order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court on earlier occasions to be continuing till the fresh order is passed by
the SDO coupled with the fact that various reports which were considered by
the Division Bench of this Court have not been taken into consideration by
the SDO while passing the impugned order.
Despite specific observations made by the Division Bench of this
Court, the SDO has failed to appreciate the reports placed before the
Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the very act of the SDO amounts to
disobedience of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The
Division Bench has disposed of the writ petition by imposing cost of
Rs.25,000/- to be recovered from the SDO personally. Despite of the same,
the SDO without considering the reports has passed the impugned
order. Thus, the Court deems it appropriate to grant interim relief to the
petitioner.
The effect and operation of the order dated 20.2.2025 (Annexure-P/14)
shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing and the gate installed by the
office bearers of the temple samiti i.e. the respondents no. 5 to 9 be removed
with immediate effect.
Respondent no. 2 is to ensure removal of the gate installed by the
office bearers of the temple samiti with immediate effect.
Compliance report be submitted within seven days from today for
perusal of this Court.
4 WP-6295-2026
Reply be filed within four weeks.
A copy of this order be provided to the State Counsel for its
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
