The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the imperative of environmental protection by directing the prompt demolition of unauthorised constructions within 200 metres of the Shipra River. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing Master Plan compliance and preventing ecological degradation through strict adherence to zoning regulations. Practitioners and authorities must note the Court's emphasis on expeditious action and documentary evidence in environmental litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Satyanarayan, filed a writ petition challenging unauthorised constructions near the Shipra River in Ujjain, which violated the Ujjain Master Plan, 2025. The petition highlighted the ecological threat posed by these constructions and sought their demolition. The State, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, acknowledged the violations but sought time to comply with judicial directions.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2023: Writ petition filed seeking demolition of unauthorised constructions.
- 8 December 2025: Court directed the State to file a report on constructions within 200 metres of the Shipra River and actions taken.
- 4 February 2026: State submitted a report identifying 143 unauthorised constructions across four zones.
- Interim Order: Court prohibited further construction within the restricted area, except for official projects.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Demolition of all unauthorised constructions within 200 metres of the Shipra River.
- Enforcement of the Ujjain Master Plan, 2025 to prevent further violations.
- Directions to the State to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Ujjain Master Plan, 2025 imposes a mandatory obligation on the State to demolish unauthorised constructions near the Shipra River, and whether judicial intervention is warranted to enforce such compliance.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that:
- The constructions violated environmental protection norms and the Master Plan, which prohibits development within 200 metres of the river.
- The State's failure to act amounted to dereliction of duty, warranting judicial intervention.
- Reliance was placed on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to emphasise the Court's role in enforcing environmental laws.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that:
- It had identified all unauthorised constructions and was taking steps to comply with the Court's directions.
- Immediate demolition was impractical due to logistical challenges, and a phased approach was necessary.
- The Master Plan allowed for certain exceptions, which the State was reviewing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, both cornerstones of environmental jurisprudence in India. It noted that the Ujjain Master Plan, 2025 explicitly prohibits constructions within 200 metres of the Shipra River to protect its ecological integrity. The Court observed:
"The State's report identifies 143 unauthorised constructions, which are not only illegal but also pose a grave threat to the environment. The Master Plan is not a mere guideline but a binding legal document, and its violation cannot be condoned."
The Court relied on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India to emphasise that environmental protection is a constitutional duty under Article 21 and Article 48A of the Constitution. It rejected the State's argument for a phased approach, holding that delay in enforcement would perpetuate ecological harm.
The Court also addressed the procedural lapse regarding the disposal of I.A No. 1474/2023, directing the Registry to rectify the error and list the matter for consideration.
The Verdict
The Court directed the State to:
- Demolish all unauthorised constructions within 200 metres of the Shipra River in a time-bound manner.
- File a compliance report by 9 March 2026, detailing the actions taken.
- Ensure no further constructions are permitted in the restricted zone.
The Court held that environmental protection under the Master Plan is non-negotiable and that the State must act with promptitude to prevent irreversible damage.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Demolition Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
The judgment establishes that:
- Unauthorised constructions violating environmental norms must be demolished, irrespective of logistical challenges.
- Judicial intervention is justified where the State fails to enforce Master Plan compliance.
- Practitioners can cite this judgment to argue for expeditious action in environmental cases.
Documentary Evidence Is Crucial
- The State's report identifying 143 unauthorised constructions was pivotal in the Court's decision.
- Authorities must maintain detailed records of violations to facilitate enforcement.
- Petitioners should rely on official reports to strengthen their cases.
Environmental Protection Overrides Practical Challenges
- The Court rejected the State's plea for a phased approach, prioritising ecological integrity over administrative convenience.
- This sets a precedent for strict enforcement of environmental regulations, even in complex cases.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- The Court's direction to the Registry to rectify the disposal of I.A No. 1474/2023 underscores the importance of procedural accuracy.
- Practitioners must ensure that all interlocutory applications are properly addressed to avoid delays.
