IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WP No. 37713 of 2025 (MARLIN BUILDCON PVT LTD THROUGH SATPAL SINGH Vs MUNCIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS )

Dated : 27-01-2026 Shri Rahul Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Deputy Solicitor General with Shri Hindesh Pal - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Heard on I.A.No.1719/2026 - an application for permitting the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

Ms. Sanskriti Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal is permitted to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing.

Vide order dated 23.01.2026, Ms. Sanskriti Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal was asked to explain that under what circumstances without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the extreme steps of demolition of the part of the property of the petitioner was taken by the respondents, despite knowing well that this Court is seized with the matter and on 26.09.2025 direction was issued by this Court to give a copy of this petition to Shri Darshan Soni, Advocate who normally represents Municipal Corporation, Bhopal.

On 06.10.2025, he himself has prayed for a week's time to comply with the order dated 26.09.2025. On 16.10.2025, the respondents further prayed for two weeks' time to file response to the petition and in the meanwhile they have taken extreme steps for demolition of the property of the petitioner on 18.11.2025 without giving any prior intimation or notice to the petitioner. The action taken by the respondents is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (In Ref.) reported in (2025) 5 SCC 1.

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal has submitted before this Court that the building permission of the petitioner has already been revoked vide letter dated 07.11.2024 by exercising power under Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012. It is submitted that on a complaint submitted to the answering respondents, the spot inspection of the construction raised by the petitioner was conducted wherein excess construction was found and notice under Section 302 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to remove the same was issued on 06.05.2025. Again a notice under Section 307 (2) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was issued to the petitioner on 14.05.2025 for removal of excess construction. Notice clearly shows the detail of excess construction raised by the petitioner. The reply to the notice dated 14.05.2025 was submitted by the petitioner pointing out that he has already preferred an application for compounding. It is argued by her that as he has submitted an application for compounding, therefore, he has virtually admitted the excess construction raised by him. It is pointed out that the process of application for compounding could be taken when the petitioner removes the construction on the front MOS, therefore, the application for compounding was returned back to the petitioner directing for removal of the front portion of MOS and thereafter his application for compounding will be taken into consideration.

It is argued that the petitioner is the owner of only a part of the property whereas, he has sought permission for the entire plot. Therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner that why his building permission should not be revoked or kept in abeyance in terms of Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 because the permission has been obtained after suppressing the material facts. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that one civil suit is also filed by one Ms. Namrata Chaudhary and Ms. Shivani Taneja regarding the construction which is pending adjudication. It is argued that despite notice issued to the petitioner, the construction was not removed by the petitioner, therefore, the authorities themselv