Any action taken against a lodge owner for Ujjain road widening will remain subject to the outcome of his petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed while issuing notice on a challenge to Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has issued notice on a writ petition by a lodge owner in Ujjain who has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, in the context of a demolition notice issued for widening a road ahead of the Simhastha Kumbh [Somil Karade v. State of Madhya Pradesh].
The order of October 5, 2026 came from a Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, which listed the matter after four weeks.
The interim direction
The Bench noted that the vires of Section 305 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation [AIR 2016 SC (Supp) 372]. Considering the issues raised, it nevertheless issued notice. The notice itself was not stayed.
It is directed that any action taken against the petitioner by the respondents shall be subject to final disposal of this petition.
The Corporation, in effect, is free to proceed, but whatever it does remains subject to the outcome of the petition. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the challenge.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Restores Rs 5 Lakh Per Acre For Fazilka Drain Land, Rejects Radial Pricing
Who the petitioner is and what he argues
The petitioner owns a house on Chaubis Khamba Marg, Ujjain, where he runs a lodge. On September 22, 2026, the Ujjain Municipal Corporation issued him a notice asking him to vacate within seven days to make way for road widening. These are the petitioner’s contentions and the Court has recorded no finding on them.
His case is that Section 305 circumvents the acquisition and compensation procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He also says that no compensation has been offered, that the notice was issued without giving him a hearing in breach of natural justice, and that the action infringes his right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana HC Flags Malice In Demolition Against PIL Petitioner, Orders CBI Probe
Why the order matters
Road works for the 2028 Simhastha Kumbh are likely to bring more owners into conflict with municipal demolition notices in Ujjain. The petition asks the Court to look again at a provision the Supreme Court has already held valid, so its outcome will depend on how far the Bench considers that precedent to settle the points now raised.
The interim direction is a limited one. It protects the petitioner’s right to contest the action later, rather than halting it now.
Case Title: Somil Karade v. State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No. 41475 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Ashutosh Jagtap for the petitioner; Government Advocate Amit Bhatia for the State