IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA WRIT PETITION No. 13456 of 2023 INDORE STEELS AND IRON MILLS LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. GURUCHARAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Abhinav Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ambar Pare - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

Shri Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 5490 of 2023 VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mini Ravindran - Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

Shri Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.3.

WRIT PETITION No. 13457 of 2023 GGS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Abhinav Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

WRIT PETITION No. 13458 of 2023 GNS DEVELOPMERS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Abhinav Malhotra - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran - Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

WRIT PETITION No. 20914 of 2024 M/S VIDHYA ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI DHIREN PATEL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate with Ms. Kriti Dubey - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

(Reserved on :- 22.09.2025)

(Pronounced on :- 16.12.2025)

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER Since these petitions raise common questions of facts and law, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

02. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for directing the respondents not to initiate or undertake any proceeding or action for the intended construction of road and for further directing them to restrain themselves from commencing and carrying out any work of construction of road on their land. Prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to confine the demolition up to the boundary wall only as submitted in previous round of litigation i.e. in W.P. No.6227/2015 and in the alternate for directing the respondents first to compensate the petitioners as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Prayer has also been made for quashing the notices issued to the petitioners as regards the proposed construction of the road directing them to remove their construction.

03. As per the petitioners, they are the owners and in possession of various parcels of land situated in Gram Bhagirathpura, Indore which are freehold land. They have made constructions thereupon after obtaining due permissions. They are regularly paying property tax for their land and building. Earlier, two writ petitions bearing W.P. No.6688/2015 and W.P.

No.6226/2015 were preferred by the petitioners before this Court challenging similar action by the respondents in issuing notices to them for widening of the road. In W.P. No.6688/2015, it was observed that a declaration has been given by the IDA as well as Municipal Corporation that not even an inch of petitioner's land will be acquired for widening of the road in light of which the petition was disposed off by order dated 13.10.2015. In W.P. No.6226/2015, a detailed paragraph wise reply was filed by the respondents wherein they had agreed that they shall not demolish anything except the boundary wall and the temporary shed for the purpose of construction of the road. The road which was sought to be constructed/widened in the earlier round of litigation is the same road for which removal/demolition activities are sought to be carried out b