SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Shravan Kumar – Appellant 
Versus
State of M.P. Through Panchayat and Rural Development Department and others – Respondent 
WRIT PETITION No. 12965 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2025
 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Pal
For the Respondent: Shri Anand Soni, Shri Rishabh Singh Chouhan, Shri Peyush Jain

Unauthorized construction by a Gram Panchayat must comply with public safety norms and legal requirements, emphasizing that compliance is essential to prevent hazards.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Petitioner's challenge to unauthorized construction of commercial shops on Nazul land violating public safety norms and lacking legal sanction - Court emphasizes that construction should adhere to safety regulations and approval processes. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Public Safety - Court recognizes the gravity of public safety concerns at the busy intersection due to unauthorized construction leading to potential hazards.

(C) Panchayat Raj Act - The Gram Panchayat's authority to construct, while noted, is scrutinized concerning procedural adherence and public safety. (Paras 14-19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, an RTI activist from Village-Bamniya, seeks intervention against unauthorized shop construction by Gram Panchayat, despite public safety warnings, raising concerns of traffic obstruction and legal violations.

Findings of Court:
The court concludes that the construction is lawful but emphasizes the need for proper traffic management measures to prevent congestion.

Issues: Key issues addressed include the legality of the construction, adherence to public safety regulations, and the authority of the Gram Panchayat in executing such projects.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the Gram Panchayat has the right to construct, such actions must comply with safety guidelines and proper authorization processes, maintaining that public safety is paramount.

Result: Writ Petition stands disposed of; construction is lawful, but measures to mitigate traffic congestion must be implemented.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's arguments against gram panchayat's authority and procedures. (Para 10 , 12 , 13)
2. construction legality maintained; public safety must be addressed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 20)

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the respondents to stop the unauthorized construction of 11 shops being carried out without legal sanction and in violation of public safety norms on Nazul land (Survey No.144) on State Highway No. 39A at the congested intersection of Village –Bamniya.

FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF

02. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village – Bamniya, District – Jhabua, claiming himself to be a public-spirited individual working actively for public causes and identifies himself as an RTI activist also engaged in journalism with a reputed daily newspaper. Over the years, he has initiated several matters at the District and State level in Jhabua to expose corruption and to protect public interest. These included disclosure of financial losses to the Government, action against erring officials and successful prosecution of offenders and also matters that involve large-scale misappropriation of public funds.

2.1. According to the petitioner, at the intersection of Ratlam – Jhabua State Highway No.39A near the Ambika Mata Mandir in Village – Bamniya, there exists a sharp and narrow curve situated approximately 100 metres from the local railway station. The location is a busy junction where vehicular movement from Gujarat and Rajasthan converges with local and inter-district traffic, including heavy goods carriers transporting petroleum products, cement and chemicals. The petitioner avers that traffic congestion at this point is a daily occurrence lasting for extended periods, and the presence of the railway station nearby leads to a high volume of pedestrian traffic in the vicinity, aggravating the safety hazard.

2.3. The petitioner alleges that Survey No.144 of Village – Bamniya is a Government Nazul land adjoining the said intersection and despite repeated objections and in the absence of any lawful sanction, respondent No.5 / Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Village – Bamnia initiated construction of a commercial complex without any valid building permission, layout approval or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned departments.

2.4. The petitioner contended that the construction of 11 shops was allegedly permitted on the basis of a settlement proposal signed only by the Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bamniya without the approval or signatures of the elected Panchayat members and without any resolution passed by the Panchayat body. Accordingly to the petitioner, such construction on an already narrow stretch of a State Highway would inevitably cause complete obstruction of the road, severely impair pedestrian safety and jeopardize public life.

2.5. The petitioner avers that respondent No.5 had earlier submitted an application on 30.05.2013 seeking removal of encroachments from this junction, acknowledging the sensitivity of the area. A complaint was also filed by the petitioner through the Chief Minister Helpline, in response to which respondent No. 3 / Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Petlawad, Jhabua, addressed a communication to respondent No.5 vide letter dated 03.06.2015 stating that no sanctioned construction activity was permitted on the said road.

2.6. Thereafter, respondent No.5 again submitted a fresh application for construction of shops and approval of building layout which was duly rejected vide detailed order dated 16.04.2018 by respondent No.3 citing public safety concerns given the proximity of the location to a blind turn and the heavy vehicular traffic going through the route and further directed that existing shopkeepers creating congestion be relocated to an alternate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top