IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE WP No. 48944 of 2025 (MOHAMMAD HUSSIAN Vs URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS )

Dated : 14-12-2025 Shri Kuldeep Pathak - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1-3/State.

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

"a) To allow this petition by issuing appropriate writ, direction or order and to direct the respondents to not to carry out any demolition activity in relation to land and building situated at Survey No. 740, Kasba Ujjain, Juna Somwariya, Ujjain, District- Ujjain (M.P.), admeasuring 0.6580 Hectare, without following due process of law; and b) To direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above mentioned land, without following due process of law, which the petitioner is holding as valid title holder;

and c) To direct the respondents to comply with the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, reported as 2024 INSC 866, before taking any action of demolition in relation to above mentioned structure of the petitioner; and d) Any other relief as this court may deem fit, in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2. The relief is with regard to the constructions mentioned in para 5.2 of the petition which is being reproduced as below:-

"5.2 That, the petitioner further respectfully submit that temporary construction raised on such land has been through tin-shed and for such construction no permission is required, as per the provisions contained under the M.P. Bhui-Vikas Niyam, 2012 from the Ujjain Municipal Corporation. That, with due permission of the petitioner such tin-sheds are being occupied by- (1) Nawab Khan S/o Amir Khan, (2) Mohammad Firoz S/o Abdul Gaffar, (3) Mohsin S/o Kallu Khan, (4) Najim S/o Abdul Hamid and (5) Wasim S/o Rashid, each occupying tin-shed construction of 20 feet X 40 feet."

3. The claim of the petitioner is on the basis that he succeeded on the said land after the death of his father.

4 . Shri Sudeep Bhargav, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that the action is being taken by the respondent No. 4, who will clarify the position. As per his information, the demolition proceeding has been completed, whereas the petitioner submits that their construction has not been demolished though they have not filed the photographs due to want of time.

5. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 is not available.

6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re : Directions in the matter of demolition of structures reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291 para No. 90 and 91, the respondents are directed to maintain the status quo as it exists today till 16.12.2025.

7. List the matter on 16.12.2025.

8. Let a copy of this petition along with annexures and a copy of this order be supplied to the standing counsel appearing for the respondent(s)

during the course of the day.

C.C. today.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE ajit