[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
1 WP-8804-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 5th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8804 of 2014
DR. AKBAR ALI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Anshul
Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8838 of 2014
DR. PUNIT DIXIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with
Shri Anshul Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
2 WP-8804-2014
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION No. 8922 of 2014
OBEDULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with
Shri Anshul Dixit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION No. 2974 of 2015
BHUPENDRA SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vidya Shankar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION No. 3314 of 2015
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
3 WP-8804-2014
M/S L.B.S. HOSPITAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vidya Shankar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION No. 5933 of 2015
SHAKEEL ABBAS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Udayan Tiwari - Senior Advocate with Shri Neeraj
Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT PETITION No. 5934 of 2015
MOHAMMAD FAIYAZ KHAN ALIAS CHAND MIYAN AND
OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
4 WP-8804-2014
Shri Udayan Tiwari - Senior Advocate with Shri Neeraj
Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Jain - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Cheeranjeev
Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
RESERVED ON : 19.12.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 05.01.2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Facts of the case have been taken from Writ Petition
No.8804/2014.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the
impugned order dated 26.05.2014 passed in Case No.2/195,197,201
passed by the respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation, Bhopal (M.P.)
for the removal of an illegal structure at their own cost raised on the land
of Khasra No.160. The petitioners are claiming themselves to be the
owners of House No.80, Motiya Talab, Thelewali Sadak, Opposite Tazul
Maszid, Bhopal. The petitioners are running a hospital in the name of
"Silver Line Hospital" .
2. The petitioners purchased the said house from Shri Babu Lal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
5 WP-8804-2014
Agrawal, S/o Shri Krishna Das Agrawal, vide two registered sale deeds
dated 29.10.1999. In para 5.4, the petitioners gave a history of past sale
transactions. After purchasing the land, the petitioners raised a
construction on the said land with due permission granted by the
Municipal Corporation on 18.06.2011. The previous owner was also
granted permission to raise construction on the said land.
3. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before this Court
by Choudhary Noor Jamal, which was registered as Writ Petition
No.6145/2002, alleging that there were constructions raised by various
persons on the land of Siddique Hasan Tank situated in the city of
Bhopal and being a water body, the same was liable to be preserved.
Vide order dated 11.04.2014, the respondent No.2/Municipal
Corporation was directed to remove all the unauthorized constructions
raised on the land of Siddique Hasan Tank i.e. Khasra No.160.
4. In compliance of the order passed by this Court in the
aforesaid PIL, the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, issued notice to
petitioner No.1 on 02.05.2014 calling upon him to submit a reply, or else
the construction shall be demolished. The petitioner No.1 submitted the
reply to the same on 05.05.2014 by enclosing the necessary documents.
5. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner No.1,
the respondent No.2 held that the construction made on Khasra No.160 is
on the land of Siddique Hasan Tank and the same is liable to be
removed; hence, the petitioner approached this Court by submitting that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
6 WP-8804-2014
they raised a construction on a part of Khasra No.158 and not in the part
of Khasra No.160. No proper demarcation was carried out before issuing
the impugned notice by the respondent No.2. Both the Khasra No.158
and Khasra No.160 are far away. Hence, there is no question at all of
encroachment by the petitioners on the land bearing Khasra No.160.
There is a judgment and decree passed in favour of Khursid Ali in Civil
Suit No.30-A/1978. It is further submitted that no notice was served to
petitioner No.2, despite that the impugned order of removal has been
passed against petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 26.05.2014 is
liable to be dismissed.
5. After the issuance of notice, the respondents filed a reply
denying all the allegations made therein. According to the respondent, in
Public Interest Litigation, i.e. Writ Petition No.6145/2002, this Court
directed to removal of all the encroachment made on Siddique Hasan
Tank and in compliance with the said order, the individual notices were
issued to all the occupants of unauthorised structures. They all were
called upon to submit their reply, and after giving full opportunity of
hearing, the impugned order of demolition was passed. The Municipal
Corporation issued as many as 215 notices to the occupants of
unauthorised structures, out of which 196 submitted a reply. It is further
submitted that Siddique Hasan Tank is situated on Khasra No.160 on
11.910 acres of land as per the revenue record. The Khasra No.160 is
registered in the name of Municipal Corporation since year 1940. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
7 WP-8804-2014
illegal construction raised on Khasra No.160 cannot be compounded
even if any building permission has been granted; the said has been
cancelled by the State Government under Section 299-A of the
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The bunch of Writ Petitions (i.e. Writ
Petition No.9283/2014, W.P. No.614/2014 and W.P.
No.9298/2014) raising similar issues has been dismissed by this Court.
All the orders have been filed along with the reply. Learned counsel for
the respondents has placed reliance on a judgment passed in W.P.
No.9290/2014, W.P. No.9204/2014, whereby the Co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court has dismissed the said petitions. The operative
portion of the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.9204/2014 is
reproduced below:-
"12. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court has no manner
of doubt that not only the State and its instrumentalities
including Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, but also the
petitioner shall rise to the occasion by keeping the larger
public interests of the environment and ecology above their
personal and petty interests. It is expected of the petitioner to
himself remove the unlawful structure over the land specified
for lake/pond/talab and prove himself to be worthy citizen of
capital city of Bhopal.12.1 In case the unlawful structure of
petitioner built over the land specified for lake/pond/talab in
question is not removed within a period of 30 days from
today, then the same shall be removed by the Municipal
Corporation with the aid of police, if necessary, after
following due process of law."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
8 WP-8804-2014
6. There is no dispute that the issue raised in this petition has
been put to rest by this Court in W.P. No.9290/2014 and others;
therefore, all these petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground.
7. Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submits that the petitioners raised a construction on a land
purchased by them, which is part of Survey No.158, not Survey No.160.
If that is so, this issue is liable to be decided by recording the evidence.
The petitioners had a remedy to approach the Civil Court by filing a
Civil Suit to establish that there is a construction on Survey No.158 and
not on Survey No.160. If the Civil Suits are filed, then the Civil Court
may obtain a demarcation report under Order 6 Rule 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908; therefore, these Writ Petitions are dismissed with
liberty to the petitioners to file a Civil Suit.
8. Shri Dixit, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the interim
protection granted by this Court be continued till the final disposal of the
Civil Suit.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Municipal
Corporation opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that at the most,
stay would be liable to be continued till the consideration of the
application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2.
10. We find substance in the objection raised by learned counsel
for the respondent.
11. In view of the above discussion and the order passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70586
9 WP-8804-2014
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, these petitions are hereby dismissed.
The petitioners shall be at liberty to file a Civil Suit with an application
under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. If the Civil Suit is filed within a
period of 30 days from the date of disposal of this Writ Petition, then the
interim order granted by this Court shall continue till adjudication of the
application to be submitted under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC or
within 60 days, whichever is earlier.
12. No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shivani
SHIVANI TIWARI
2026.01.05 17:37:13
+05'30'
