ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

"i) A direction may kindly be given to the respondents to not to carry any further demolition of remaining part of the boundary wall and since petitioner has to restore the boundary, the respondents be restrained not to create any hindrance in construction of the boundary.

ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are residents of Gwalior and are lawful purchasers of plots allotted under the Shatabadipuram Phase-II scheme launched by the Gwalior Development Authority. Under the said scheme, several plots situated in W Block, namely Plot Nos. 556 to 561 and 566, were originally allotted to Mangal Singh Yadav, who subsequently transferred the same to Petitioner No. 1 through a registered sale deed. Likewise, Plot Nos. 564 and 565 (SR) were initially allotted to Shri Pradeep Sharma and Shri Ajay Sharma and were thereafter validly transferred to Petitioners No. 2 and 3. After acquiring title, the petitioners raised boundary walls around their respective plots to safeguard the property from encroachment and also deposited the requisite amounts with the Gwalior Development Authority.

It is contended that despite lawful ownership and possession, the petitioners were taken by complete surprise when portions of their boundary walls were abruptly demolished by the revenue authorities. Upon inquiry, the petitioners were informed that the action had been undertaken on the instructions of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioners attempted to approach the said authority but were unable to secure a hearing. On further inspection of official records, including the Dayra register, it was found that no case or proceedings had been instituted either against the petitioners, the previous owner Mangal Singh Yadav, or Smt. Geeta Sharma, whose boundary was also reportedly demolished. It is thus argued that the demolition was carried out without any notice, proceedings, or authority of law, rendering the action arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that although certain plots were purportedly allotted by the Gwalior Development Authority to Mangal Singh Yadav, the allotment itself suffers from a fundamental defect. It is contended that the land in question includes Survey No. 859, which does not belong to the Gwalior Development Authority but is recorded as property of the Aukaf Department. It is argued that the inclusion of such land in the layout plan was erroneous and undertaken without obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority. Consequently, the approval of the layout plan itself is vitiated, and the Gwalior Development Authority lacked the legal authority to allot or transfer such land. On this premise, it is submitted that any subsequent transfer based on such allotment is void ab initio and confers no legal title upon the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5, the Gwalior Development Authority, submits that the plots allotted to Mangal Singh Yadav were carved out of Survey No. 858, belonging to the Authority, and the subsequent transfers in favour of the petitioners were executed through valid registered sale deeds. It is further submitted that the dispute raised by the State pertains to Survey No. 859, which is an adjoining parcel of land. In view of the overlapping claims and allegations of encroachment, it is contended that proper demarcation of Survey Nos. 858 and 859 is essential to ascertain the true boundaries. Reference is made to a demarcation exercise conducted by the State authorities, wherein it was allegedly found that a structure belonging to Smt. Geeta Sharma had been constructed