MP High Court Protects Ujjain Lodge Owner from Demolition Pending Constitutional Validity of Section 305

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on October 5, 2026, issued a significant interim order protecting a lodge owner in Ujjain from demolition. The Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai passed the order on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, directing that any coercive action taken against the petitioner shall remain subject to the final outcome of the case. This interim protection comes amidst a road-widening drive initiated in the historic city of Ujjain for the upcoming Simhastha Kumbh.

A Seven-Day Eviction Notice For a Lodge in Ujjain

The petition was filed by Somil Karade, the owner of a lodge named Aishwariya Mahal situated on Chaubis Khamba Marg in Ujjain. The business operates under a valid license. According to the petition, on September 22, 2026, the Ujjain Municipal Corporation issued a directive informing the petitioner that the entire frontage of his building would be demolished for the purpose of widening the road. The Corporation ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises within a mere seven days.

A Legal Challenge: ‘Circumventing Acquisition and Compensation’

The petitioner's counsel, Shri Ashutosh Jagtap , argued that the application of Section 305 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act effectively allows for the compulsory taking of land without adhering to the mandatory acquisition process. It was contended that the provision "circumvents acquisition and compensation procedures" contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .

The petition further highlighted the absence of any compensation being offered to the owners for the proposed demolition. It was stated that the demolition notice was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. A crucial ground raised was the violation of the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the demolition would destroy the petitioner's only source of income.

Balancing a Supreme Court Precedent with Procedural Fairness

The court acknowledged that the vires of Section 305 have been upheld previously by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation (AIR 2016 SC Supp 372). In that case, the Apex Court had held that Section 305 places a valid restriction on ownership rights and that no construction contrary to the development plan can be raised. The Apex Court had observed that once a development plan is prepared, the owner may continue to hold the property subject to the prescribed land use, without the need for a separate acquisition process.

However, the Division Bench in the present case distinguished the facts. While the Supreme Court had upheld the power of the Corporation, the current petition raises specific issues of procedural fairness, lack of compensation, and violation of natural justice. The Bench was clearly conscious of the settled position of law regarding Section 305, yet recognized the need to examine the specific grievances raised by the petitioner regarding the manner in which the power was being exercised against him without compensation.

‘Any Action Taken Shall Be Subject to Final Disposal’

The single operative paragraph from the bench order captures the entire essence of the interim protection:

"Considering the fact that the petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 305 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 , which has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare vs. IMC and others reported as AIR 2016 SC (SUPP) 372 , however, considering the issue involved in the present petition, it is directed that any action taken against the petitioner by the respondents shall be subject to final disposal of this petition."

Kumbh Prepares, Court Pauses: Interim Relief for Aishwariya Mahal

The High Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, directed them to file their replies within a period of four weeks. Granting interim reprieve to the petitioner, the court ordered that any action taken against Somil Karade by the Ujjain Municipal Corporation or the State Government shall remain subject to the final disposal of the writ petition. This effectively means that until the court decides on the constitutional validity of Section 305 as applied in this specific instance, the lodge owner cannot be displaced or his property demolished.

The court also directed the issuance of Dasti notice to the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after four weeks. The order provides significant breathing room for the petitioner and others who might be facing similar threats along the Kumbh route, ensuring that their constitutional challenges are heard before any irreversible action is taken.