Back
MP High Court Dismisses Anand Kumar Kedia's Petition Against Demolition Notice, Imposes Costs
Suppressing Facts to Shield Property: HC Rejects Businessman's Challenge to Road Widening
The dismissed a writ petition filed by Anand Kumar Kedia, a promoter group member of , challenging a demolition notice issued by the (IMC) for a road widening project. The bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt held that Kedia had suppressed material facts and imposed a cost of ₹20,000, to be deposited with the .
The Dispute: A Road Widening Project
Kedia purchased a residential property in Survey No. 163/1/2 and 163/4/3, Village Bicholi Hapsi, Indore, in . He obtained building permissions from the in and from the IMC in . In , the IMC’s Building Officer issued a demolition notice under , alleging that part of Kedia’s construction encroached on government land required for widening an existing 30-meter road as per the Indore Development Plan 2021. The road, connecting the Bypass to the Light House Project and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna via City Forest, is about 2.4 km long and serves thousands of residents.
Petitioner’s Claims: Statutory Violations and Malafides
, appearing for Kedia, argued that the IMC lacked jurisdiction to directly execute the road widening without first finalizing a Town Planning Scheme under the . He contended that the Corporation had malafidely shifted the road’s central line to protect illegal encroachers on the southern side, targeting Kedia’s property on the north. Kedia also alleged violation of (right against deprivation of property) and the , and claimed that the IMC had circumvented acquisition laws by invoking Section 305 of the 1956 Act.
Corporation’s Stand: Binding Development Plan and Encroachment
Counsel for the IMC, , countered that a joint inspection by three departments had revealed that Kedia had encroached upon government land by constructing a wall beyond his boundary. He argued that the Indore Development Plan 2021 is binding on all authorities and owners, and the IMC was merely implementing it. Reliance was placed on the ’s judgment in Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. (), which held that Section 305 empowers the Corporation to regulate building lines and that of land occurs without separate acquisition proceedings. The Corporation also emphasized that Kedia was given multiple opportunities to be heard before the demolition order was passed.
Court’s Finding: Disentitles Relief
Justice Bhatt observed that Kedia had failed to disclose that the joint inspection report, which showed his encroachment, had been served on his representative. The court noted that Kedia had participated in the inspection and signed the panchnama, yet he claimed in the petition that the documents were never supplied. This suppression, the court held, was a material fact that directly affected the merits of the case. Quoting the ’s decision in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004), the bench stated:
“In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not properly disclosed all the relevant facts which are very material for the decision of the petition and therefore, it can be considered as by such suppression of material fact. Resultantly, the general rule of denial of relief is required to be applied.”
The court further applied the Latin maxim ‘’ (false in one thing, false in everything), concluding that Kedia was not entitled to any relief.
Legal Analysis: Binding Precedent and Applicability of Section 305
The court rejected Kedia’s argument that the 1973 Adhiniyam overrides the 1956 Act, relying on Waghmare where the held that a development plan is binding and can be implemented by the Corporation without a separate town planning scheme. The bench noted that Section 305 of the 1956 Act provides for of land once a building projects beyond the regular line of a public street, and that compensation is separately determined under Sections 306 and 387. The court found no violation of or , as the action was in furtherance of a lawful development plan and the petitioner had encroached on government land.
Decision: Petition Dismissed with Costs
Dismissing the petition, the court held that the IMC’s action was neither arbitrary nor illegal. Justice Bhatt ordered Kedia to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the within seven days. The judgment underscores that property owners cannot resist public infrastructure projects by suppressing facts and that courts will not entertain petitions based on incomplete or misleading disclosures.
