MP High Court Pulls Up Then Gwalior Collector For Demolishing Shops Despite Interim Protection Order, Refrains From Initiating Contempt

The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a plea against lease termination and subsequent demolition of certain shops in 2022 expressed its displeasure with the then Collector, Gwalior for "giving a lame excuse" that since he was not a party to the matter he was unaware about the court's interim order protecting the shopkeepers from dispossession. 

The high court while stopping short of issuing contempt to the official cautioned him not to repeat such an act in future.

A division bench of Justice Sunita Yadav and Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke in its order said, "Though this court has not gone into the merits of the matter, but is constrained to observe the behaviour of the Revenue Authorities, specially the then Collector, Gwalior who had in total disregard of the interim order of this Court dated 09.07.2022 had carried out demolition activities on 02.08.2022".

The high court observed that it had in its August 26, 2022 order directed the then Collector, Gwalior to submit a response to "demonstrate the course of events of demolition, which was carried out without taking leave of this Court". The court noted that the then Collector's reply gave a "very lame excuse that since none of the Revenue Authorities including him was a party to the Appeal, therefore, he was not in the knowledge" of the court's July 9 interim order directing that the appellants may not be "forcibly dispossessed". 

The bench further said that the explanation given by the then Collector is not "ingestible" as at the time of passing of the interim order the state was represented through Government Counsel.

Secondly, the court noted that the appellants were "fighting from tooth and nail for their rights" when they were called by the then Collector on August 2, 2022 for talks, and so it was not possible that they would not have informed him (Collector) about the interim order or would not carry along with them the copy of the interim order.

"Since the matter pertains to the shop situated at bus stand Lashkar Gwalior, this Court presumed that it was very well within the knowledge of the Collector, Gwalior being the Revenue head of the district and even though he was having knowledge, he in total disregard of the command of this court had ordered the demolition of the shops, which is contemptuous," the court said.

While observing that the then Collector's "act amounts to contempt", however the court while taking a "lenient view", cautioned the official directing him not to "repeat such an act in future". 

"Chief Secretary State of MP is directed to give the then Collector Gwalior a word of caution and advise him not to repeat such act which would be derogatory to the orders of this court and may cost him severely," the bench directed. 

Background

The appellant who ran a shop had challenged a 2022 order of the single judge bench who had disposed of their writ petition in view of an order passed in a separate matter. The appellant contended that this other order on the basis of which their Writ Petition was disposed of was not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the other matter the lease of the concerned party had expired and was not renewed. The appellant contended that in their case the lease was in existence till April 25, 2027, but was cancelled on extraneous grounds. The appellant sought that the single judge bench's order be set aside and the lease termination order on November 22, 2021 be quashed.

As per the facts, the November 2021 order terminated the lease alleging that the conditions of the agreement had been flouted and was thus liable for cancellation, with a further stipulation that the possession of the shop be handed over to the authorities within a period of 30 days, else there would be legal consequences. 

While issuing notice on the plea on July 9, 2022 the high court in its interim order directed the state authorities not to "forcibly dispossess the appellants".

During the course of hearing on August 2, 2022, the officials of the Respondent State allegedly demolished the shops.

The court in its August 26, 2022 order directed that "till further orders no construction activity or further dispossession/demolition shall take place". The court had also made it clear that even the debris which were lying on the spot shall not be removed without its permission and status quo as it exists shall be maintained by the parties.

The high court had then also directed the then Collector to file his response about the course of events of the demolition undertaken without the court's permission.

The then Collector, district Gwalior filed a reply on September 15, 2022 stating that since the Revenue Authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh–including the "Collector, Gwalior and SDO Jhansi Road were not made party to the matter, they were not aware of the proceedings. It was claimed that since the appellant did not supply a copy of the relevant order to them, "ignorantly direction to demolish some of the shops possessed by the appellants was passed and some shops were even demolished on 02.08.2022".

The reply further said that in a joint meeting including members of revenue authorities, transport corporation and various shopkeepers on August 3, 2022  a proposal to rehabilitate the 10 shop-keepers i.e the appellants herein was taken up, which the appellants  agreed to by putting their signatures as a mark of consent. 

It was also submitted that to realise the proposal of rehabilitation of the appellants a, five Member Committee was constituted on August 8, 2022 to prepare a lay out plan in respect of alternative land/shops proposed to be granted to the appellants for next 30 years (renewable lease) and, thereafter, to expedite and legalize the rehabilitation process.

Further a proposal to initiate the proceedings exercising powers conferred under M.P. Nagar Palika (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Niyam (rules) 2016 was forwarded by SDO Jhansi Road, which was accepted and on August 22, 2022 proceedings under the 2016 Rules were initiated by forming a fresh Committee as per Nagar Palika Adhiniyam under the Chairmanship of Collector, wherein Committee took decisions for rehabilitation of the appellants.

The reply stated that after decision was taken by the Committee to allot the alternative land for rehabilitation of the shopkeepers considering the fact that the earmarked piece of land was of the ownership of MPRTC (transport corporation), hence, the proposal was sent to the State Authorities i.e. Principal Secretary, Government of M.P., Transport Department, Bhopal for grant of NOC or to surrender of ownership rights in favour of Revenue Department.

Thereafter on March 22 this year the Secretary, Transport Department State of MP wrote a letter to the then Collector District Gwalior informing him that 2,500 ft.² land of the ownership of the Transport Department has been resolved to be given to the Revenue Department, which was brought on the court's record in an application moved by the state in April this year. 

Contentions

The counsel for the State as well as for transport corporation contended that the process of allotment of shop to the appellants is in progress and soon the appellant shopkeepers would be rehabilitated and shops would be allotted to them. It was contended that in wake of allotment of the land to the Revenue Department when the matter was in process while taking into consideration the rules and regulations of M.P. Nagar Palika (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Niyam 2016, it was found that Municipal Corporation is the competent authority within the municipal limits to allot land. Considering this the SDO Jhansi Road, Gwalior had prepared the entire proceedings and had forwarded it to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation.

It was contended that since the matter has been resolved and the Commissioner Municipal Corporation is a competent authority to rehabilitate the present appellants and is in the process of allotment nothing survives in this present appeal and, therefore, the present appeal can be disposed of as infructuous. 

Meanwhile the appellants contended that the statement made by the counsel for the respondent/State is not to be trusted as firstly their officers have demolished the shops even when an interim order passed by this court was in operation and now it had shifted its burden over the Municipal Corporation, who was not a party to the writ petition. It was further submitted that from the Collector's reply it was evident that the revenue authorities are playing "hide and seek" and are trying to shift their burden upon the other authorities, as from the said reply it was evident that a total false statement was made on oath by the Collector that he was not aware of the interim order, when the said order was passed in presence of the Government Advocate representing the State.

They said that merely on the premise that the Collector was not a party to the proceedings, he is trying to wriggle out of his miss-deeds which shows the "basic character of State Authorities, in disobeying the orders" of the Courts which amounts to contempt of court for which they are required to be punished.

Findings

Taking note of the contentions and facts the high court found said that the appellants' challenge would have been of some consequence if the situation of rehabilitation of the appellants would not have been thought of by the respondent.

"...but since the process of rehabilitation of the appellants herein have reached to the extent of allotment of shops to the appellants, though on a different site and is laying with the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, this court, without going into the merits of the matter, deems it fit to dispose of the present appeal with a direction to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation to allot land/shop to the appellants herein in an expeditious manner," the court said. 

The high court went on to dispose of the appeal with a direction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to allot land/ shops to the appellants within three months from the date of receiving of certified copy of the high court's order.

The court further said that till the time the shops/land are allotted to the appellants' the interim order of August 26, 2022–which protected the appellants from dispossession/demolition, "shall be in operation". 

Case title: KRISHNAKANT JAISWAL v/s THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Counsel for Petitioner Appellant: Advocates Anand Vinod Bhardwaj and Shri Pawan Kumar Dwivedi,

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Prashant Sharma, counsel for State of MP,  advocate S.S. Kushwaha appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Click To Download Order