IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 12^th OF DECEMBER, 2024 REVIEW PETITION No. 1363 of 2024 ZAKI ANWAR ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi - advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajwardhan Gawde-GA/PL appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER

1. This review petition under Order XLVII Rule of the CPC read with Article

215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 30A Chapter 3 of the M.P. High Court Rules 2008 for review of the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33904/2024.

2. On perusal of the order dated 12.1.2024, it reveals that the aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of Civil Suit.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the fundamental rights of the petitioner is affected by demolishing his house illegally without following due process of law, hence, the petition is maintainable, and has also relied upon various judgements passed by the Supreme Court. In the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported as (1996) 2 SCC 549 has held in para 7 which reads as under:-

"7. In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human rights......"

5. In the case of Vimala Ben Ajit Bhai Patel Vs. Vatsala Ben Ashok Bhai Patel reported in AIR 2008 SC 2675 in paragraph 42 held as under:-

"42. The right to property is no longer a fundamental right. But still it is a constitutional right. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right. The procedures laid down for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with (see Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2008) 1 SCC 728 :

JT (2007) 12 SC 256] )."

6. In the case of Chairman Indore Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. M/S Pure Industrial Cock and Chem. Ltd and others reported as AIR 2007 SC 2458 in paragraph no.56 which reads as under:-

"56. Earlier human rights were existed to the claim of individuals right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. but now human rights have started gaining a multifaceted approach. Now property rights are also incorporated within the definition of human rights. Even claim of adverse possession has to be read in consonance with human rights. ......."

7. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the above mentioned judgments it is very clear that whether or not the property is not a fundamental right of a person but the Supreme Court along with the constitution of India has given a sanctity to the rights of person bearing a property, even illegally, and the rights of a person for the same shall be secured by the Hon'ble Court.

8. In the case of Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta, reported as AIR 2002 SC 3560 in paragraph 9 has held as under:-

"9........Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act."

9. In the case of In Re:Directions In the matter of Demolition of structures 2024 SCC on line SC

3291 has clearly directed the procedures to be followed for demolition and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also clearly directed