[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalit Singh Thakur vs Jabalpur Municipal Corporation on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22405
1 WP-9862-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9862 of 2026
LALIT SINGH THAKUR
Versus
JABALPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshul Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V. S. Choudhary - Advocate appears on advance notice for the
respondents Corporation.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i). To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by
quashing and set aside the impugned notices dated
16.03.2026 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and also directing the
respondents not to carry out any kind of demolition
activity with respect to the petitioner's shop (temporary
structure).
(ii). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by
directing the respondents to follow the mandate issued
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of In Re:
Direction in the matter of demolition of Structure in
Writ Petition (Civil No. 295/2022) on 13/11/2024,in
case of any demolition action is proposed with respect
to the shop of the petitioner.
(iii). To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit10.and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation
in favour of the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner is in having
possession over the disputed temporary construction (shop) i.e. tin shed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22405
2 WP-9862-2026
through his grandfather and father since more than 50 years. The petitioner
and his family members are carrying on business of food selling like chat.
The shop in question is situated at Shantanand Saraswati Maharaj Ram
Mandir which is a trust and the shop is situated on the trust property.
The petitioner also paid property tax and same is showing name of the
Shantanand Saraswati Maharaj Ram Mandir which makes it clear that the
said land belongs to Trust property. The shop in question is not situated on a
public land.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the the Respondent
no.2 vide notice dated 16.03.2026 granted 3 days time to produce the records
with respect to alleged unauthorized construction and on the same day
another notice to vacate the shop in 24 hours was issued to petitioner
wherein it is mentioned about Government land but the authorities failed to
consider that the shop in question is situated on the land belonging to the
Trust. It is argued that without following the due process of law and
affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents are
bent upon to carry out the demolition drives with respect to the petitioner's
shop. It is next contended that the while proposing the action in question, the
respondents are not following the procedure prescribed in the Municipal
Corporation Act. The proposed action of the Respondentno.2 is in gross
violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and the same is also not
in conformity with the Municipalities Act. He has prayed for quashment of
the impugned order issued by the respondent no. 2.
4. Shri V.S. Choudhary, Advocate appears on advance notice for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22405
3 WP-9862-2026
respondents Corporation and submits that it is only an intimation given to the
petitioner to come to the respondents authorities and submit all relevant
documents to show his entitlement on the property in question and after
hearing the petitioner, the action will be taken against him, if required for
removal of the encroachment. Till then, no demolition will take place with
respect to the property in question of the petitioner.
5. His statement is placed on record.
6. In view of the aforesaid statement, the petitioner is directed to
appear before the authorities on 20.3.2026 along with all the relevant
documents in support of his case and the authorities are directed to dwell
upon the same and after hearing the petitioner, they may pass order.
7. Till the order is passed by the authorities, no coercive action for
demolition of the property of the petitioner will take place.
8. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
