IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that administrative actions affecting property rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

Appellant/Petitioner has filed W.A. No. 1119/2022 challenging the order dt. 23-8-20222, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 7667/2010. Appellant/Petitioner has also filed W.A. No. 1120/2022 challenging the order dt. 23-8-2022, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 4120/2010.

2. The controversy involved in both the appeals is the same, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.A. No. 1120/2022, which are as under :—

(i) The appellant/petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition claiming himself to be the owner and in possession of temple and nearby land of survey No. 2613 at Datia being a disciple (chela) of Mahant Amardas of Shri Narsingh Temple. The petitioner was served with a notice dt. 9-7-2010 by SDO – Additional Tahsildar PWD, Datia alleging that he has encroached upon the government land bearing survey No. 2255 and sought explanation from him till 16-7-2010. The petitioner appeared and submitted a detailed reply that there is no encroachment on Survey No. 2255, whereas the petitioner constructed the shop as per the permission of Survey No. 2613. Respondent No. 6 fixed the date for further appearance on 28-7-2010. However, without concluding the proceeding initiated under section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Code), the respondents demolished 14 shops on 18th July, 2010, which resulted in the loss of Rs. 40 lakh to the petitioner as well as to the occupants of the shops.

(ii) According to the appellant, Mahant Amardas was the exclusive owner of Shri Narsingh Temple and the property attached to the temple situated on Survey No. 2613 area of 0.129 hectares. After the death of Mahant Amardas, he became a successor under the ‘Guru Parampara’ System. This Court had already held in his favour that he is the true successor of Mahant Das and therefore there is no dispute in respect of the locus of the petitioner in filing this present petition.

(iii) After notice in the writ petition, respondents/State filed the reply reiterating that the appellant/petitioner constructed the shops on an area of 172.12 sq. mtr. of Survey No. 2255 total area of 0.566 hectares. Therefore, the notice was issued under section 248 of the Code. The SDO PWD has been delegated with the power of Tahsildar vide gazette notification published on 26-5-1975. After conducting the survey, the aforesaid encroachment has been found proved and accordingly, the shops have been demolished. However, along with the return, the respondents did not file any document to substantiate that the proceedings which were initiated under section 248 of the Code were concluded after surveying in the presence of the appellant/petitioner. Along with the return, the respondents filed a final order dt. 16-7-2010 passing the final order of eviction along with which a fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed.

(iv) Vide order dt. 23-8-2022, Writ Court dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the final order dt. 16-7-2010 and deity is the owner of Survey No. 2613 and the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition before this Court. However, liberty has been granted to the deity to challenge the final order dt. 16-7-2010 through its next friend.

(v) Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1120/2022. Vide a non-speaking order dated 22-9-2022, the Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No. 5374/2023. Vide order dt. 15-4-2024, the SLP was allowed and the writ appeal was directed to be decided on merits in accordance with law.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

4. The core issue in both these appeals is whether the action of the respondents in demolishing the