The Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court of Madhya Pradesh order directing demolition of shops constructed near ‘Dussehra Maidan’ in Khachrod, holding that the decision was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and beyond the permissible scope of writ jurisdiction.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the shop allottees who had been in possession since 2005 pursuant to a lawful auction process were not impleaded as parties in the public interest litigation (PIL), despite being directly affected by the demolition order. The Court held that such non-joinder of necessary parties constituted an “error apparent on the face of record”, warranting interference.
The Court emphasised that orders causing serious civil consequences cannot be passed without affording affected parties an opportunity to be heard. It noted that the High Court erred in dismissing review petitions filed by the allottees, despite the clear breach of natural justice.
On the issue of maintainability, the Supreme Court held that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, ought not to have adjudicated disputed questions of title between the State Government and the Municipal Council. It reiterated that ownership disputes cannot be conclusively determined in writ proceedings, particularly in a PIL.
Examining the factual matrix, the Court found that the shops were constructed on the boundary of the Maidan and did not encroach upon or obstruct the area used for Dussehra celebrations. It observed that sufficient open space remained available for cultural activities and that no evidence showed any hindrance caused by the shops.
Critically, the Court cautioned against misuse of PIL jurisdiction, noting that such proceedings should advance public interest and not harm legitimate private rights. It observed that the petition appeared to be driven by oblique motives and had ultimately resulted in injustice to lawful allottees.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment and review orders, and dismissed the PIL. However, it clarified that the State is at liberty to take action in accordance with law, if any illegality in construction is established.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR; Mr. K Vinayakam Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Maqbool Mansuri, Adv.
Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G.; Mr. Ishit Saharia, AOR; Mr. Kuldeep Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Adv.; Ms. Pooja Chahar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR; Ms. Amruta Arjun Garg, Adv.; Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Adv.; Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Manisha T. Karia, A.A.G.; Mr. Sarthak Raizada Ga, Adv.; Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
