##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 17 OF AUGUST, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 33717 of 2026 ANAND KUMAR KEDIA Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kishore Shrivastava - Sr. Advocate with Shri Amit Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rishi Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent no. 2 and 3. Shri Tanishq Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

" RELIEF PRAYED FOR:

In view of the elaborate facts and circumstances stated above, and the substantive grounds urged herein, the Petitioner most humbly, respectfully, and earnestly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to grant the following reliefs:

7.1 Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, setting aside the Impugned Notice dated 11.08.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Building Officer, Zone 19, Indore Municipal Corporation) being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Constitution.

7.2 Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof directing the Respondents to strictly adhere to the mandatory provisions of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and perpetually restraining them from undertaking any road widening on the Petitioner's property situated at Survey No. 163/1/2 and 163/4/3 without the final publication of a Town Planning Scheme under Section 50(7) and without executing formal acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.

7.3 Direct an independent, impartial, and scientific demarcation of the proposed 30-meter road on Government Land Khasra No. 164, utilizing the original 2019 coordinates, to expose and rectify the malafide shifting of the central line.

7.4 Pass any other order(s), direction(s), or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the complete facts and circumstances of the case, and in the paramount interest of justice and equity

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are as under:

The petitioner is the lawful owner and in physical possession of the residential house comprising total area of 1.452 hectares, situated at Survey No. 163/1/2 and 163/4/3, Village and Tehsil Bicholi Hapsi Distt. Indore. The said parcel of land was purchased vide sale deed dated 04.04.2017. To follow the urban planning regulation prior to initiation of construction, a formal statutory demarcation was executed by the Revenue Officers thereby establishing precise geospatial boundaries separating the petitioner's private property from the adjoining government road land at Khasra No. 164. The respondent no.1 had issued the Development Plan 2021 for Indore. The respondent no. 2 i.e. the Commissioner of Indore Municipal Corporation had granted the building permission to the petitioner and the respondent no.3 acting under the guise of executing the Indore Development Plan, 2021 had issued a coercive demolition notice dated 11.08.2026 bearing Notice No.

IMC/Zone-19/Ward-76/2026/3006/6. The impugned notice mandates the demolition of petitioner's lawfully constructed residential premises to an arbitrary and mathematically absurd 'average depth' of 12.782 meters despite the petitioner having applied for all the necessary building permissions from the Indore Municipal Corporation as well as permissions from the revenue authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following contentions: i. Learned counsel has argued at length by drawing my attention towards various Sections of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973[for brevity, referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1973' hereinafter], more particularly Section 17, 20, 55, 56, 57, and 38 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. He has also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble