The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the state cannot demolish private property for public infrastructure projects without first acquiring the land and paying just compensation. This ruling reinforces the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 300A and mandates procedural fairness in urban development initiatives.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court held that the state cannot demolish private property for road widening without acquiring the land and paying compensation as required by Article 300A of the Constitution. The court directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation with the Ujjain Municipal Commissioner, who must decide it within three weeks with a reasoned order. Demolition is stayed until then, and if the decision is adverse, the petitioner is granted ten days to challenge it legally.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Sohni Jain, owns a shop and residential structure situated on privately held land in Ujjain. The State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Ujjain Municipal Corporation, issued notices earmarking the property for demolition as part of a road widening project. No formal acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act or any other statutory framework. No compensation had been offered, nor was any notice of intent to acquire provided.
The petitioner challenged this action through a writ petition under Article 226, arguing that the proposed demolition amounted to an unlawful deprivation of property without due process. She relied on two precedents: a 2019 Delhi High Court judgment in Sarita Gupta v. MCD, which held that municipal bodies cannot bypass acquisition procedures for public works, and a 2023 Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Shahnawaj Mizwani v. State of M.P., which similarly barred demolition without acquisition.
The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate, did not dispute the absence of acquisition proceedings but contended that the property was located within a notified public utility zone and that the demolition was necessary for public interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state can lawfully demolish private property for road widening without initiating formal acquisition proceedings and paying compensation, even if the land is being used for a public purpose.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Article 300A of the Constitution prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law, and that such authority must include procedural safeguards including notice, hearing, and compensation. He emphasized that the Delhi and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had previously held that municipal authorities cannot circumvent acquisition laws by labeling property as "encroachment" or "public utility". He cited the principle that public interest cannot override constitutional rights without due process.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the property was situated in a zone designated for public infrastructure and that the demolition was incidental to a legitimate public purpose. It argued that the petitioner had not challenged the notification of the road widening project itself and that the state retained discretion to remove structures obstructing public works. However, it did not produce any order of acquisition, compensation offer, or statutory authority permitting direct demolition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional framework under Article 300A, which states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The Court held that "authority of law" requires more than executive fiat; it demands a statutory process that includes acquisition, assessment of compensation, and opportunity for hearing. The Court rejected the State’s argument that public interest alone justifies demolition, noting that public purpose does not negate the requirement of lawful procedure.
"The State cannot invoke the banner of public utility to bypass the constitutional mandate of acquisition and compensation. To do so would render Article 300A a dead letter."
The Court distinguished the present case from instances of illegal encroachments on public land, noting that the petitioner’s property was privately owned and had been in continuous use for decades. The Court also affirmed the precedents cited by the petitioner, stating that the Delhi and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had correctly interpreted the law and that their reasoning was binding in principle.
The Court further held that the absence of any statutory order authorizing acquisition rendered the demolition notice legally unsustainable. It emphasized that even in urgent infrastructure projects, the rule of law must prevail over expediency.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent that municipal corporations and state agencies cannot proceed with demolition of privately owned structures for road widening or similar projects without initiating formal acquisition proceedings. Practitioners representing property owners in urban development disputes can now rely on this ruling to seek stays and demand compliance with Article 300A.
The decision reinforces that public interest cannot be used as a blanket justification to override constitutional rights. Future cases involving alleged encroachments on private land must now be scrutinized for whether the land was lawfully acquired. If not, demolition orders are liable to be quashed.
The court’s directive to file a representation before the Commissioner and obtain a reasoned order sets a procedural benchmark. It ensures that even if the property is ultimately deemed liable for acquisition, the owner is afforded a fair hearing. This procedural safeguard will likely become a standard requirement in similar cases across Madhya Pradesh and may influence jurisprudence in other states.
The ten-day window to challenge an adverse decision also provides a meaningful remedy, preventing arbitrary enforcement and aligning with the principles of natural justice under Article 14.
