Sarla Singhania vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

Present petition is filed seeking following prayers :-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 22/01/2026 passed in letter no. LNV/MC/2026/3375 by Respondent no.4, i.e. Annexure P/9.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12/03/2026 passed by Respondent no.2, i.e. Annexure P/17.

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents that the shop of the petitioner i.e. shop no. MN 111/7, Asati Ward no.1, Tandon Building, Cinema Road, Damoh, may not be demolished without following the due procedure of law, and without giving an opportunity of hearing to him.

(iv) To allow the cost of case in favour of petitioner.

(v) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present petition is filed mainly contending that in view of section 221 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, the property can be demolished only when the opinion is available that the only option with the Corporation is to demolish the property and in absence of such opinion such property cannot be demolished. He has further submitted that petitioner being tenant is harassed by the Corporation with a view to help the original landlord to use the premises in question and, as such, no procedure required under the law is properly followed by the Corporation. He has submitted that the ground for issuance of notice only indicates that building is 100 years old and no other ground raised. Lastly, he has submitted by tendering some document at the time of hearing that even some marriage has taken place in the property in question and, therefore, it cannot be considered that property is in such a dangerous situation that it is required to be demolished.

Counsel for the Corporation has strongly opposed the submission by referring to the two earlier orders passed by the Co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.28354/2025 and also W.P.No.3291/2026. It is submitted that the appellate authority has considered all the submissions. He has submitted that at the time of inspection of property, the petitioner was present at the place of inspection which reflects from the photographs. However, petitioner has refused to sign the panchnama prepared at the time of such joint inspection and petitioner actually participated in all the proceedings. He has further submitted that even the engineers from the PWD department and from the Municipal Corporation department have opined that the property in question is required to be demolished. He has further submitted that the other tenants as well as landlords have already vacated the premises and property is huge property and there are many tenants and now the petitioner is occupying the property and perusing the present petition and, therefore, he has submitted that consideration of present petition will amount to abuse of process of law. He has relied on the judgment Allahabad High Court in Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Deva Samiti and another Vs. State of U.P. and three others passed in Writ-C No.3256/2026 order dated 20.02.2026, more particularly, paragraph-16 of the judgment and has submitted that such dispute of tenant can be decided only under the provisions of Tenancy Act and not otherwise, therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and I have also considered the fact that there are two round of litigation on earlier occasion and court has directed the authority to consider the case of petitioner by considering provisions of section 221 and thereafter also by hearing the appeal in terms of section 307 of the Act. It transpires from the record that both the directions are followed by the authority from the material available on the record and considering the legal position the direction of the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.28354/2025, more particularly, para 4 and 5 which reads as under :-

"4. The notice (Annexure P/5) does not indicate that whether any application of mind has been applied by the authorities to the aspect that whether the building is beyond repair and taking down of the building/demolition of the building is the only the way out, The other modes under Section 221 of the Act whether have been explored or not, is not indicated by the notice (Annexure P/5) which is on a printed format, Therefore, the impugned order/notice (Annexure P/5) dated11.07.2025 is set aside.

The Chief Municipal Officer shall be at liberty to take a fresh reasoned decision that whether the building can be repaired, secured or its demolition is the only way out and can direct the petitioner accordingly by exploring all possibilities under Section 221 of the Act."

So also considering the direction given in W.P.3291/2026, more particularly, para-3 which reads as under :-

"Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 307 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and if such an appeal is preferred within 7 days, then the appellate authority to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 15 days thereafter, after giving audience to the petitioner. Till the decision is taken by the appellate authority on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, no demolition to take place with respect to the property in question."

On perusal of the photograph also it indicates that building is more than 100 years old and opinion of the Engineers of PWD department and engineers from the Corporation are also obtained by the authority and they have pointed out that the only solution is demolition of the property. Therefore, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of section 221 of the Act and it cannot be said that any illegality or impropriety is committed by the present respondents by issuing such notice. Considering the other aspect that the conduct of the petitioner that except petitioner other persons who are occupying the premises as tenant have already evicted the premises and petitioner is still occupying the same and considering the fact that it is duty of the Corporation to protect the any such untoward incident which may taken place due to damaged building, I am of the view that no interference is called for by considering the prayer is the present petition.

Petition is found meritless. No power is to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.