Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Imran Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61715
1 WP-46169-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 28 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 46169 of 2025
MOHD. IMRAN KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah - Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Aakash
Malpani, Panel Lawyer for the respondents / State.
ORDER
The challenge in this petition is made to the impugned notice / order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the unauthorized additional construction raised by him within three days, failing which coercive action shall be taken against him.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In re, (2025) 5 SCC 1 wherein certain directions/guidelines have been issued. It is submitted that in the present case, the said guidelines are not followed by the authorities. The petitioner has already submitted reply to the show cause notice before the authorities but as far as the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 94 thereof, they are required to be followed by the authorities. The authorities are required to give personal hearing to the petitioner before taking any extreme steps for demolition of the property and thereafter pass a reasoned order.
3. Shri Ruprah, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 28-11-2025 14:58:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61715 2 WP-46169-2025 vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions pointing out the fact that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In re, (2025) 5 SCC 1 was taken care of and followed in the present case. The petitioner was issued a notice on 28.10.2025 and he was asked to produce the documents regarding ownership of the property in question and the permission taken for construction of the house in question as well. However, the documents have never been produced before the authorities, therefore, the impugned order is passed. The petitioner is not the owner of the property and under the garb of an agreement which was entered way back in the year 2017 with respect to a vacant plot, the present petition has been filed. There is no sale deed produced by the petitioner with respect to the property in question and the petitioner has subsequently constructed the house without taking permission from the department. Therefore, he was asked to approach the authorities to produce the documents regarding unauthorized construction.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Para 94.12 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has argued that even the occupant of the property is entitled for protection of the property in question in terms of the said judgment. The petitioner is an occupier of the authorized construction, therefore, in terms of Para 94.12 of the judgment, the some breathing time should be granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority. It is also argued that in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, notice should be specific. It is argued that if the Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, then also, 15 days' time is required to be granted to the petitioner to enable him to approach the Appellate authority or Competent authority against the order passed by this Court.
5. The said prayer is opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 28-11-2025 14:58:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61715 3 WP-46169-2025 pointing out the fact that the notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.10.2025 but the petitioner could not produce any document pertaining to the ownership or the permission taken from the department for construction. His entire construction is unauthorized.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The operative part of the judgment i.e. D irections in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In re, (2025) 5 SCC 1, particularly Para 94 thereof, reads 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 28-11-2025 14:58:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61715 4 WP-46169-2025 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 28-11-2025 14:58:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61715 5 WP-46169-2025 Commissioner by email and shall also be displayed on the digital portal."
8. The petitioner before this Court could not produce any document regarding ownership of the property in question nor any documents to show that he raised construction after taking permission from the department. Therefore, as far as the impugned order / notice is concerned, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. But, in terms of para 94.12 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents are directed not to carry out demolition in pursuance to the impugned order / notice for a period of 15 days from today. The authorities are free to take action in pursuance to the order / notice which is impugned herein after a lapse of 15 days, in case, if there is no other legal impediment.
9. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE JP Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 28-11-2025 14:58:00