Prem Porwal & Ors. v. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati & Ors. | 2026 INSC 435 | Judgment dated 19 March 2026
In a significant judgment delivered on 19 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in Prem Porwal and Others v. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Others, set aside the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had directed demolition of shops constructed by the Municipal Council, Khachrod, on the allegation that they had been erected on land known as “Dussehra Maidan”. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria, with the opinion authored by Justice N.V. Anjaria. Lahoti Advocates successfully represented the private appellants/shop allottees before the Supreme Court.
The dispute arose from a writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court, wherein the petitioner alleged that shops constructed by the Municipal Council had encroached upon land reserved for Dussehra festival and cultural activities. The High Court accepted the PIL petitioner’s case and directed removal of the shops. However, the crucial feature of the matter was that the shop allottees, who had obtained the shops through auction, paid premium amounts, executed rent/lease documents, and remained in possession for several years, were not impleaded as parties before the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a manifest error in passing demolition directions against persons who were neither parties to the proceedings nor afforded any opportunity of hearing. The Court observed that the appellants were not mere strangers; they were allottees-cum-occupants-cum-possessors of the shops and were directly affected by the demolition order. Their right to carry on trade and business was at stake, and any order resulting in serious civil consequences could not have been passed in their absence.
A major aspect of the judgment is the Court’s reaffirmation of the principle that necessary parties must be heard before adverse directions are issued against them, especially in proceedings invoking public interest jurisdiction. The Court held that a judgment passed in the absence of necessary parties, where the directions directly affect their rights, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the High Court ought to have exercised review jurisdiction when the affected shop allottees approached it seeking review of the demolition order.
The Supreme Court also emphasised the limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, both the Municipal Council and the State Government asserted competing claims of ownership over the land. The Municipal Council contended that the land had vested in it under the applicable municipal laws and historical records, while the State claimed that the land belonged to the Government. The Supreme Court held that questions of title or ownership involving disputed facts cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ proceedings, including PIL proceedings. By directing demolition after effectively accepting one claim over another, the High Court had travelled into a domain unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226.
On facts, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had misjudged the physical position of the shops. The certified map produced by the Municipal Council showed that the shops were located on the boundary area, abutting the public road, and were separated from the actual open Dussehra Maidan by other existing structures such as a Sanskar Kendra, community hall, boys’ hostel and school buildings. The Court noted that there was ample open area available for Dussehra and cultural activities, and there was no material to show that the shops obstructed such activities.
The judgment is also an important cautionary reminder on the exercise of Public Interest Litigation jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that PIL is meant to advance public good and cannot be allowed to destroy legitimate private rights or lawful interests of citizens who are not before the Court. The Court held that orders in PIL proceedings should not become antithetical to the very object of public interest jurisdiction. In this context, the Court further noticed the Municipal Council’s allegation that the PIL petitioner was a disgruntled person who had not been allotted a shop and that the petition appeared to carry an oblique motive.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed all four appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 20 April 2015 as well as the orders dismissing the review petitions dated 15 May 2015, and dismissed the PIL filed before the High Court. The Court, however, clarified that it would remain open to the State to take appropriate action, if permissible in law, against the Municipality for alleged illegal construction, without expressing any opinion on that aspect.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
First, a person whose civil rights, possession, business, livelihood or property interests are directly affected by a proposed order is a necessary party and must be heard before adverse directions are issued.
Second, non-impleadment of necessary parties in such circumstances constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying exercise of review jurisdiction.
Third, writ courts, including while exercising PIL jurisdiction, must refrain from adjudicating complex disputes of title and ownership, particularly where rival factual claims require proper evidence and adjudication before an appropriate forum.
Fourth, PIL jurisdiction must remain disciplined and must not be permitted to cause injustice to lawful private parties under the guise of advancing public interest.
Fifth, courts must carefully examine whether alleged public injury is real and substantiated, particularly where demolition or irreversible civil consequences are sought.
This judgment therefore stands as a significant reaffirmation of natural justice, limits of PIL jurisdiction, protection of lawful private rights, and judicial restraint in disputed questions of title. It is particularly important for matters involving municipal allotments, public land disputes, demolition directions, and PILs where third-party rights are likely to be affected.
Lahoti Advocates successfully represented the Petitioners before the Supreme Court through Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Advocate-on-Record, assisted by Mr. Kumar Vinayakam Gupta and Mr. Maqbool Mansuri, Advocates.