Madhya Pradesh High Court
Marlin Buildcon Pvt Ltd Through Satpal ... vs Muncipal Corporation on 27 January, 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 : 27-01-2026
Shri Rahul Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Deputy Solicitor General with Shri
Hindesh Pal - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Heard on I.A.No.1719/2026 - an application for permitting the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Ms. Sanskriti Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal is permitted to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing.
Vide order dated 23.01.2026, Ms. Sanskriti Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal was asked to explain that under what circumstances without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the extreme steps of demolition of the part of the property of the petitioner was taken by the respondents, despite knowing well that this Court is seized with the matter and on 26.09.2025 direction was issued by this Court to give a copy of this petition to Shri Darshan Soni, Advocate who normally represents Municipal Corporation, Bhopal.
On 06.10.2025, he himself has prayed for a week's time to comply with the order dated 26.09.2025. On 16.10.2025, the respondents further prayed for two weeks' time to file response to the petition and in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:17 2 WP-37713-2025 meanwhile they have taken extreme steps for demolition of the property of the petitioner on 18.11.2025 without giving any prior intimation or notice to the petitioner. The action taken by the respondents is contrary to the judgment passed 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.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal has submitted before this Court that the building permission of the petitioner has already been revoked vide letter dated 07.11.2024 by exercising power under Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012. It is submitted that on a complaint submitted to the answering respondents, the spot inspection of the construction raised by the petitioner was conducted wherein excess construction was found and notice under Section 302 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to remove the same was issued on 06.05.2025. Again a notice under Section 307 (2) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued to the petitioner on 14.05.2025 for removal of excess construction. Notice clearly shows the detail of excess construction raised by the petitioner. The reply to the notice dated 14.05.2025 was submitted by the petitioner pointing out that he has already preferred an application for compounding. It is argued by her that as he has submitted an application for compounding, therefore, he has virtually admitted the excess construction raised by him. It is pointed out that the process of application for compounding could be taken when the petitioner removes the construction on the front MOS, therefore, the application for compounding was returned back to the petitioner directing for removal of the front portion of MOS and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:17 3 WP-37713-2025 thereafter his application for compounding will be taken into consideration.
It is argued that the petitioner is the owner of only a part of the property whereas, he has sought permission for the entire plot. Therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner that why his building permission should not be revoked or kept in abeyance in terms of Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 because the permission has been obtained after suppressing the material facts. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that one civil suit is also filed by one Ms. Namrata Chaudhary and Ms. Shivani Taneja regarding the construction which is pending adjudication. It is argued that despite notice issued to the petitioner, the construction was not removed by the petitioner, therefore, the authorities themselves has removed the part of excess construction raised by the petitioner on 18.11.2025 and has further informed the petitioner vide letter dated 18.11.2025 to remove the excess construction on its own that is Annexure R-12.
If the document i.e. letter dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure R-12) is seen, it is a notice under Section 307(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 which is mentioned as under :-
"उपरो वषयांतगत सूिचत कया जाता है क दनांक-18.11.2025 को भवन मांक 25, ना दर कॉलोनी, अपर लेक, भोपाल म संदिभत प अनुसार अवैध िनमाण को हटाने क कायवाह क गई, समयाभाव के कारण थल पर कये अवैध िनमाण को पूण प से नह ं हटाया जा सका।
अतः आपको सूिचत कया जाता है क उ भवन के शेष अवैध िनमाण को 07 दवस म वयं हटाकर मय छायािच के अधोह ता कता के सम तुत करना सुिन त कर, अ यथा उ शेष अवैध िनमाण को समयाविध पूण होने के उपरांत हटाये जाने क कायवाह नगर िनगम भोपाल ारा पुनः क जावेगी, अवैध िनमाण को तोड़ने क कायवाह के दौरान उ भवन म य द कोई ित होती है तो उसक स पूण ज मेदार आपक होगी एवं उस पर होने वाले यय क ितपूित आपसे क जावेगी।"
From the perusal of the said notice, it is seen that procedure for removal of excess construction was carried out by the authorities but for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:17 4 WP-37713-2025 paucity of time the entire excess construction raised by the petitioner could not be removed. Therefore, vide letter dated 18.11.2025, he was asked to remove the excess construction on its own within seven days or else the authorities will themselves remove the excess construction for which the entire responsibility will be of the petitioner.
The fact remains that the authorities were well aware of the fact that the matter pertaining to the revocation of the building permission is pending adjudication before this Court. Even the civil suit with respect to the property in question is also filed by one Ms. Namrata Chaudhary and Ms. Shivani Taneja which is pending adjudication as per the respondents themselves.
The counsel appearing for the respondents has taken time on two occasions to seek instructions and to file response to the petition. However, the record further indicates that no notice for demolition of the property was issued to the petitioner after return of his compounding application. The last notice which was issued was dated 14.05.2025. Once the authorities have returned the application for compounding to the petitioner asking him to remove the excess construction as reflected in front MOS, the authorities were required to issue a specific notice to the petitioner regarding their intentions to take extreme steps for demolition of the excess construction raised by the petitioner. Without issuance of any notice after return of compounding application, the authorities themselves have taken extreme steps for demolition of the part of the property of the petitioner on 18.11.2025 and on the same day has issued a notice to the petitioner for removing the remaining construction which is reflected from Annexure R-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:175 WP-37713-2025
12. The action taken by the authorities is 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.) (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"94. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law. A. Notice 94.1. No demolition should be carried out without a prior show-cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days' time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. 94.2. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question.
94.3. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice.
94.4. To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct that as soon as the show-cause notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail should also be issued from the office of the Collector/District Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall designate a Nodal Officer and also assign an email address and communicate the same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge of building regulations and demolition within one month from today. 94.5. The notice shall contain the details regarding: (a) The nature of the unauthorised construction. (b) The details of the specific violation 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.
94.6. Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within 3 months from today wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, the show- cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:17 6 WP-37713-2025 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. 94.12. An opportunity should be given to the owner/occupier to remove the unauthorised construction or demolish the same within a period of 15 days. Only after the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice has expired and the owner/occupier has not removed/demolished the unauthorised construction, and if the same is not stayed by any appellate authority or a court, the authority concerned shall take steps to demolish the same. It is only such construction which is found to be unauthorised and not compoundable shall be demolished. 94.13. Before demolition, a detailed inspection report shall be prepared by the authority concerned signed by two panchas. E. Proceedings of demolition 94.14. The proceedings of demolition shall be videographed, and the authority concerned shall prepare a demolition report giving the list of police officials and civil personnel that participated in the demolition process. Video recording to be duly preserved.
94.15. The said demolition report should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also be displayed on the digital portal."
If the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken note of then the authorities are required to give a breathing time to the concerning even if they arrived at a conclusion that the excess construction is raised and they have taken a decision to demolition the same and pass an order pertaining to demolition of structure, they were required to give some breathing time to the concerning to avail the remedy in accordance with law against the said order. However, nothing was done in the present case. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:17 7 WP-37713-2025 last notice was issued on 14.05.2025. Thereafter, the authorities themselves kept quite for a considerable long period. Under these circumstances, the explanation which has been tendered by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation as well as the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal is not satisfactory and cannot be accepted.
As the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has flouted the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, she is directed to appear before this Court personally to explain that why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for flouting with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (In Ref.) (supra) knowing it well that this Court is seized with the matter. She is directed to appear before this Court on 05.02.2026.
List this matter on 05.02.2026 for consideration.
Copy of the order be communicated to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal for necessary compliance.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AM Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 29-01-2026 19:39:17