[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amrit Ben vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
1 W.P. No. 7150/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 7150 of 2026
AMRIT BEN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
_______________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate with Shri Siddharth Singh -
Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi - Government Advocate for the
respondents No.1, 3 to 6/State.
Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent No.2 on
Caveat.
_________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 26/02/2026
Post on : 27/02/2026
__________________________________________________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JAGADISHAN
AIYER
Signing time: 28-02-2026
13:06:31
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
2 W.P. No. 7150/2026
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, or direction to quash the topographical survey prepared
by the Executive Engineer, Project Cell, Municipal Corporation,
Indore. The Petitioners assail the action of Respondent No. 2
(Indore Municipal Corporation) in allegedly entering upon the
Petitioners' land bearing Survey No. 58/1/1/3/2, situated at Village
Bada Bangarda, Tehsil Hatod, District Indore, and initiating
marking and construction for a proposed 45-metre Master Plan
Road. The Petitioners contend that such action has been undertaken
without the lawful fixation of the central line, without the issuance
of a statutory notice under Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and in disregard of the orders
passed by this Court in W.P. No.6776 of 2026.
2. The petitioners are the joint owners in possession of land
bearing Survey No. 58/1/1/3/2, admeasuring 0.3600 hectare, having
acquired valid title vide a registered sale deed dated 30.05.2018.
The revenue records were subsequently mutated in their favour vide
order dated 29.08.2020.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
3. A Development Permission/Layout Sanction was granted to
the Petitioners on 02.01.2021 by the Joint Director, Town and
Country Planning Department, Indore, for a portion of the land
(0.1050 hectare) to develop a petrol pump. In the said sanction, an
area of 45 square metres falling within the alignment of the
proposed 45-metre Master Plan Road was excluded, leaving a net
permissible development area of 1005 square metres.
4. Following the layout sanction, the Petitioners obtained a
diversion order for commercial purposes on 11.08.2021, a No
Objection Certificate under the Petroleum Rules, 2002 on
14.12.2021, and Building Permission from Respondent No.2 on
14.10.2021. Similarly, a separate layout sanction was granted on
04.06.2020 for an adjoining residential colony, wherein 32 square
metres of land was explicitly left out for the alignment of the said
Master Plan Road.
5. Apprehending unilateral marking of the road by the
authorities, the Petitioners filed an application under Section 129 of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, on 11.02.2026.
The Tehsildar, Malharganj, vide order dated 18.02.2026, directed
the Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari to conduct a demarcation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
6. Concurrently, the petitioners preferred W.P. No.6776 of 2026
before this Court. Vide order dated 20.02.2026, the said petition
was disposed of upon an undertaking by Respondent No. 2 that no
coercive action would be taken without first issuing a notice under
Section 305 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and affording
an opportunity of hearing, including the supply of the committee
report for the petitioners to submit their objections.
7. The petitioners allege that immediately following the order
dated 20.02.2026, Respondent No.2 commenced road construction
activities over the weekend based on a unilateral topographical
survey, prompting the filing of the present writ petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
actions of respondent No. 2 are arbitrary, colourable in the exercise
of power, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution
of India. It is argued that entering the property and initiating road
marking without issuing a notice under Section 305 of the
Municipal Corporation Act is illegal and in direct breach of the
undertaking given to this Court in W.P. No.6776 of 2026.
9. The petitioners contend that the central line of the proposed
45-metre road has not been lawfully fixed in their presence.
Reliance is placed on the judgment in W.P. No.42308 of 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
(Prahlad Daga and Ors. vs. Urban Administration and
Development Department), wherein this Court mandated that the
central line must be determined and demarcated in the presence of
affected landowners. It is asserted that the topographical survey
relied upon by Respondent No.2 is a unilateral executive action that
cannot substitute statutory demarcation.
10. In their rejoinder, the petitioners vehemently dispute the
validity of the notice dated 22.08.2025 and the spot inspection
memo dated 25.08.2025 relied upon by the Respondents. It is
submitted that petitioner No.1 is a 73-year-old lady who does not
sign in English, making the signature on the notice fabricated.
Further, it is contended that petitioner No.2 was not present during
the alleged demarcation due to heavy rainfall on 25.08.2025, and
that the photographs filed by the respondents show material
inconsistencies in timing. The petitioners assert that no final
demarcation report or field book has been prepared, rendering the
ongoing construction wholly without authority of law.
11. Per contra, the answering respondent raises a preliminary
objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition,
contending that it is barred by the principles of res judicata and
constitutes an abuse of process. It is submitted that the petitioners
are seeking the exact same reliefs as those prayed for in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
previously disposed W.P. No.6776 of 2026. Relying on M/s.
Upadhyay & Co. Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1999 SC 509) .
12. The respondent refutes the allegation of unauthorized
construction, submitting a latest geo-tagged photograph dated
23.02.2026 to demonstrate that the petitioners' property has not
been disturbed. It is averred that the process of issuing notices
under Section 305 has not yet been initiated, and the petitioners will
be afforded a due opportunity of hearing in strict compliance with
the order dated 20.02.2026.
13. The respondent further alleges suppression of material facts,
stating that a multi-departmental committee was constituted on
23.06.2025 pursuant to the orders in W.P. No.19855 of 2025. It is
submitted that demarcation and alignment of the central line were
carried out on 25.08.2025 and petitioner No.2 was physically
present during this exercise, a fact deliberately concealed in the writ
petition. Placing reliance on S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Vs. State of Bihar [(2004) 7 SCC 166], it is argued that such
suppression disqualifies the petitioners from any equitable relief.
14. In its additional reply, the respondent submits that the
disputed signatures on the notice might belong to an employee or
manager of petitioner No.1. The respondent highlights that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
Petitioners are attempting to act as handwriting experts and are
raising heavily disputed questions of fact regarding signatures,
dates, weather conditions, and physical presence, which cannot be
adjudicated under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is reiterated
that the right to receive documents and file objections has already
been secured by the prior order of this Court.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings and documents available on record.
16. The core issue before this Court is whether the present writ
petition is maintainable in light of the previous order dated
20.02.2026 passed in W.P. No.6776 of 2026, and whether the
averments raised by the petitioners warrant interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. At the outset, it is an admitted position that W.P. No.6776 of
2026 was instituted by the Petitioners seeking identical protections
against the actions of respondent No.2 concerning the same 45-
metre Master Plan Road. This Court, vide order dated 20.02.2026,
comprehensively protected the petitioners' rights by directing
Respondent No. 2 to strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 305
of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The order specifically
mandates the issuance of a notice, the supply of the committee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
report to the petitioners, the granting of an opportunity to file
objections, and the passing of a reasoned final order before any
coercive action is taken. The respondent has placed on record that
the stage of issuing Section 305 notices has not yet arrived and no
construction has been carried out on the petitioners' land,
corroborating the same with geo-tagged photographs. The rights of
the petitioners are, therefore, already secured by a binding judicial
directive. Instituting a successive writ petition on an identical cause
of action is legally impermissible and amounts to an abuse of the
process of law.
18. Furthermore, the pleadings reveal profound disputes on core
factual issues. The petitioners vehemently deny their presence
during the demarcation exercise on 25.08.2025, allege fabrication
of signatures on the statutory notices, and contest the authenticity of
the spot inspection memo based on weather conditions and
inconsistent photographic timestamps. Conversely, respondent No.2
has produced notices and geo-tagged photographs asserting the
physical presence and participation of petitioner No.2 during the
said multi-departmental demarcation process. The respondent has
also cogently demonstrated that the petitioners wholly suppressed
the fact of the 25.08.2025 proceedings in their initial petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
19. It is a well-settled principle of law that the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating heavily
disputed questions of fact. Assessing the genuineness of signatures
on a notice, determining the exact timestamp of photographs, or
concluding the physical presence of a party at a specific site on a
specific date requires the adducing of evidence, cross-examination,
and factual fact-finding, which falls squarely outside the purview of
writ jurisdiction.
20. Moreover, he who seeks equity must do equity. The
suppression of the demarcation proceedings dated 25.08.2025,
whether actively participated in or merely within the knowledge of
the Petitioners, constitutes a concealment of material facts. As
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.J.S. Business
Enterprises (supra), such suppression disentitles a litigant from
claiming equitable relief under Article 226.
21. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment in
Prahlad Daga(Supra) is misconceived, as in the present factual
matrix, an expert committee was indeed constituted and a
demarcation exercise was undertaken on 25.08.2025, the validity of
which is a highly disputed factual question. Furthermore, the
overarching protections regarding the central line, committee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5891
report, and alignment objections have already been granted to the
Petitioners in W.P. No.6776 of 2026. The petitioners are at liberty
to raise all these factual disputes, including objections to the
topographical survey and the demarcation report, before the
competent authority when the notice under Section 305 is formally
issued.
22. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in
the present writ petition. The disputes raised are entirely factual in
nature, the material facts have been suppressed and the petitioners'
statutory rights have already been safeguarded in the previous
round of litigation. This Court, therefore, lacks the power and the
appropriate grounds to entertain this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
24. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*PS
