The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the state cannot demolish private property for public infrastructure projects without following due process of law. This judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 300A and sets a clear procedural boundary for executive action in urban development.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Santosh Rani Juneja, owns a shop and residential structure situated on privately held land in Indore. The respondent authorities, including the Collector, Indore District, have issued notices earmarking the property for demolition as part of a road widening project. No formal acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or any other statutory mechanism have been initiated. The petitioner contends that the proposed demolition constitutes an unlawful deprivation of property without compensation.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking:
- A direction to restrain demolition of her property
- A declaration that the proposed action violates Article 300A
- A direction to initiate proper acquisition proceedings
No prior administrative hearing or opportunity to object was granted to the petitioner before the demolition notice was issued.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate restraint on demolition and a direction to the authorities to follow statutory acquisition procedures before any action is taken against her property.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state can demolish private property for public road widening without initiating formal acquisition proceedings and paying compensation, and whether such action violates Article 300A of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two key precedents: Sarita Gupta and Others v. MCD (Delhi High Court, 2019) and Shahnawaj Mizwani v. State of M.P. (this Court, 2023). He argued that Article 300A mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law, and that demolition without acquisition constitutes arbitrary state action. He emphasized that mere public purpose does not override the requirement of due process and compensation.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate contended that the road widening project falls under the state’s police power to regulate land use for public welfare. He argued that the demolition was a necessary step in urban planning and that compensation could be determined later. He did not cite any statutory provision authorizing demolition without acquisition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional framework under Article 300A, which was inserted by the 44th Amendment to ensure that property rights, though no longer a fundamental right, remain protected against arbitrary state action. The Court held that the state’s power to acquire land for public purposes cannot be exercised through unilateral demolition. The Court distinguished between regulatory action and confiscatory action, noting that demolition without acquisition is confiscatory in nature.
"The state cannot bypass the statutory machinery of acquisition merely by labeling the action as part of a road widening project. The right to property, though not fundamental, is still a constitutional right, and its deprivation must be by law, not by executive fiat."
The Court further relied on Shahnawaj Mizwani, where this Court had held that even in cases of urgent public works, procedural fairness and statutory compliance are non-negotiable. The Court rejected the State’s argument that compensation could be determined post-demolition, stating that such an approach violates the principle of audi alteram partem and renders the constitutional safeguard under Article 300A illusory.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that demolition of private property without acquisition and compensation violates Article 300A. The Court directed the Collector to consider the petitioner’s representation within seven days and pass a reasoned order. Demolition is stayed until then, and if the decision is adverse, the petitioner shall have ten days to challenge it.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Demolition Without Acquisition Is Unconstitutional
- Practitioners must now challenge any demolition notice issued without a prior acquisition order under the Land Acquisition Act or equivalent statutory framework
- Municipal bodies and urban development authorities cannot rely on "public purpose" alone to justify seizure of private property
- Any such action must be preceded by formal notification, opportunity to be heard, and a legal basis for acquisition
Procedural Fairness Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
-
The Court’s directive to file a representation and receive a reasoned order establishes a new baseline for administrative fairness in land-related disputes
-
Authorities must now document their decision-making process, including reasons for rejecting claims of ownership or title
-
Failure to issue a speaking order will render any subsequent demolition order vulnerable to judicial review
-
Always demand a copy of the acquisition notification or statutory order authorizing demolition
-
File objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, if applicable, even if no formal notice has been issued
-
Cite Shahnawaj Mizwani and this judgment to argue that Article 300A requires both substantive and procedural legality
