MP HIGH COURT: RESTRAINED AUTHORITIES FROM DEMOLISHING PROPERTY BY GIVING LESS THAN A DAY’S NOTICE

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in the case Late Shri R.M. Sojatia Foundation Trust Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh observed and has came to the rescue of a litigant whose property was ordered to be demolished by giving him less than a day’s notice by the concerned authorities. The bench headed by Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh observed and has held that it would only be fair if the Petitioner was given reasonable time for filing his objections before the appropriate authorities. The petition was disposed of by the bench by issuing directions to the respondents that they will be providing relevant papers with regard to demarcation of the land in question to the petitioners within 3 days and thereafter, the petitioner will file their reply before the competent authority or the respondent no.2 within 10 days and thereafter, respondent no.2 will pass appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the reply which is being submitted by the petitioners. In the said dispute the respondent will not demolish the construction which is to be made on the encroached land bearing survey no.442 ad-measuring 0.066 hectares which is situated at Village Nimthur, Tehsil Bhanpura, District Mandsaur. Further, it has been directed by the court that the respondents will not take any coercive action against the petitioners after passing of the said order for 7 days and provide reasonable time to the petitioners for approaching the competent authority. However, the petitioner was being served a notice by the Respondent Authority with regards to the demolition of his property allegedly constructed on government land. Thus, the notice was served on 28.12.2022 and the petitioner was required to file of its reply by the next morning itself, failing which, the property would’ve been demolished on 29.12.2022. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner moved the court. Before the Court, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was being victimized for filing of an election petition against the sitting MLA of the ruling party. It was also argued that the contents of the notice was being made clear that the same was served owing to political reasons, without granting of the proper opportunity to the Petitioner to file his reply. Thus, it was prayed in the plea that the impugned notice was being quashed. It has been argued by the State that the concerned property was being constructed upon government land and therefore, the said notice was being issued and the petitioner was provided an opportunity to file his reply. Therefore, it was also submitted before the court that the Petitioner was not entitled of for any such relief. The court found it fit from restraining the State from taking of any coercive action against the Petitioner before granting him reasonable opportunity to approach the appropriate authority. Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition with the aforesaid observations.