Prem Porwal and Othersv.Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Others

Legal Analysis: Prem Porwal and Others vs. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 435
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria & Justice Vikram Nath 
Judgment Author: Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Decision: March 19, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Public Interest Litigation and subsequent review petitions.

Synopsis of the Judgment

A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh alleging that the Municipal Council, Khachrod had illegally constructed 54 shops on land known as ‘Dussehra Maidan’, which was reserved for Dussehra festival and cultural events. The High Court allowed the PIL and directed demolition of all shops, without impleading the allottees/occupants of those shops. The allottees (private appellants) filed review petitions, which were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed two fundamental errors: (i) it passed an order demolishing shops affecting the rights of third parties (allottees) without making them parties and without hearing them – this constituted an “error apparent on the face of record” warranting review; (ii) the writ court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title/ownership of property, yet the High Court had to decide the ownership dispute between the Municipal Council and the State Government to conclude that the construction was illegal. Additionally, on facts, the map showed that the shops were on the boundary, far away from the actual Maidan, separated by school, community hall, and hostel buildings; there was no obstruction to Dussehra celebrations. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and review orders, dismissed the PIL, but left it open to the State to take appropriate action against the Municipality under law if permissible.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Prem Porwal and Others etc. vs. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Others (with connected appeals) Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16483-85 of 2015 and SLP(C) No. 16469 of 2015 Bench Justice N.V. Anjaria &  Justice Vikram Nath   (Division Bench) Date of Decision March 19, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 435 Appeal From Judgment dated 20.04.2015 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014, and orders dated 15.05.2015 in Review Petition Nos. 123 of 2015 and 125 of 2015

2. Legal Framework

Laws / Rules Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 136 (special leave to appeal to Supreme Court).

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XLVII Rule 1 (review of judgments).

• Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961: Section 100 (vesting of property in Municipality).

• Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act (erstwhile), Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, Gwalior State Municipalities Act – referred to for vesting of land.

• Public Interest Litigation jurisprudence: Principles governing maintainability and exercise of PIL jurisdiction.

Precedents Cited

1. Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960) – Definition of “error apparent on the face of record” as one that does not require long-drawn reasoning or debatable issues.

2. T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 2 SCC 526 – Review jurisdiction – error apparent on face of record.

3. Sohan Lal vs. Union of India (1957) – Disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.

4. State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh (1992) – Writ court not appropriate for deciding title disputes.

5. Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) – Limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – disputed questions of title not to be gone into.

6. Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 – Review on ground of error apparent on face of record.

7. State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta (2022) 17 SCC 255 – Review jurisdiction – sufficient grounds.

8. Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Shaik Azhar (2023) 13 SCC 515 – Review principles.

9. B.C. Kameshwara vs. K. Sreeramulu (2023) 8 SCC 11 – Review – error apparent.

What the Judgment is About

The judgment addresses the boundaries of public interest litigation jurisdiction, particularly: (i) the requirement to implead necessary parties whose rights are directly affected before issuing adverse orders; (ii) the limited scope of review jurisdiction and when non-joinder of necessary parties constitutes an “error apparent on the face of record”; (iii) the impropriety of writ courts adjudicating disputed questions of title/ownership of property; and (iv) the factual assessment of whether construction of shops on the periphery of a public ground actually obstructs the intended use of that ground. The Supreme Court reiterates that PIL cannot be allowed to sacrifice legitimate private rights without hearing the affected persons.

3. Relevant Facts

A. The Public Interest Litigation (before High Court)

• Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 before Supreme Court): Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati, claiming to be a social worker and agriculturist.

• Subject land: Survey Nos. 4228/1, 4228/2 and 4229/1, total 3.260 hectares at Khachrod, District Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. Known as ‘Dussehra Maidan’ – used for Dussehra festival and cultural events.

• Allegation: The Municipal Council (Nagar Palika, Khachrod) had unauthorisedly constructed shops on this land, reducing the Maidan area and hampering cultural activities.

• Respondents before High Court: State of Madhya Pradesh, Collector Ujjain, Tehsildar Khachrod, and Municipal Council Khachrod. The allottees/occupants of the shops were not made parties.

B. Background of Construction and Allotment

• Resolution No. 82 of 1995: Municipal Council resolved to construct shops at Ujjain Darwaja on the boundary of Dussehra Maidan. Work not executed then.

• Resolutions Nos. 45 (13.12.2002) and 21 (05.06.2003): Decision reaffirmed.

• Advertisement dated 04.03.2005: Auction of seven newly constructed shops.

• Conditions of Auction (16.03.2005), Allotment Letter (21.03.2005), Rent Agreement (19.05.2005): Shops were allotted to private persons (appellants herein) who paid auction price and took possession. They have been paying rent to the Municipal Council since around 2005.

• The shops were constructed on the boundary of the Maidan, abutting the public road.

C. Proceedings before the High Court

• PIL filed in 2014. During pendency, Tehsildar was directed to submit a report. Tehsildar passed ex parte order against Municipal Council directing demolition of all 54 shops, claiming they were illegally constructed.

• High Court judgment dated 20.04.2015: Allowed PIL, directed authorities to remove all shops.

• The private appellants (allottees) were not parties. They filed Review Petition Nos. 123/2015 and 125/2015, which were dismissed by the High Court on 15.05.2015, holding that there was no error apparent on record.

D. Stand of the Municipal Council

• Vesting of land: Under Section 100 of MP Municipalities Act, 1961, and earlier enactments (Gwalior Government Gazette dated 14.09.1929, Circular No. 3 Samvat 1998, letter dated 16.12.1933), the land vested in the Municipality. The Municipality had been maintaining the land out of municipal funds.

• No Najul land: In Khachrod municipal area, there was no Najul land. Therefore, no permission from Najul Department was required.

• No obstruction: The shops were on the boundary far from the actual Maidan; there were school, community hall, and hostel buildings in between. No complaint had ever been received that Dussehra celebrations were obstructed.

E. Stand of the State Government (before Supreme Court)

• The State claimed that the land belonged to the State Government; Khasra records from 2003 onwards described it as ‘Dussehra Maidan’ earmarked for cultural programmes.

• Any construction without prior approval of competent State authority was not permissible; no such sanction was obtained.

• The State was required to initiate proceedings against unauthorised possession.

F. Map evidence

• A certified map (authenticated by Superintendent Engineer and Chief Municipal Officer) showed that the shops were on the boundary abutting the public road. Behind the shops stood Sanskar Kendra (community hall), boys’ hostel, school building, and then a large open area of ‘Dussehra Maidan’. The shops were far away from the actual open Maidan, with intervening structures.

4. Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petitions filed by the private appellants (allottees/occupants) despite the fact that they were necessary parties, were not impleaded, and the order directing demolition of their shops directly affected their rights without hearing them – thus constituting an “error apparent on the face of record”?

2. Whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate disputed questions of title/ownership of the land, particularly when both the Municipal Council and the State Government claimed ownership, and the determination of ownership was essential to decide the legality of the construction?

3. Whether, on the facts and the map evidence, the construction of shops on the boundary of the Maidan, separated by other structures, actually caused any obstruction or reduction of the ‘Dussehra Maidan’ so as to justify demolition in public interest?

4. Whether the High Court’s order in PIL was vitiated for non-joinder of necessary parties and for violating principles of natural justice?

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Review jurisdiction – error apparent on face of record (Paras 5.1 to 5.8)

The Supreme Court restated the settled law on review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and inherent power under Article 226:

• An “error apparent on the face of record” is an error that is self‑evident, does not require a long‑drawn process of reasoning, and is not based on debatable issues (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde).

• Where such an error exists, the court must exercise review powers to do justice. The purpose of review is to cure the error and restore justice to the aggrieved party.

• Applying to the case: The High Court directed demolition of shops. The allottees – who had participated in auction, paid price, executed rent agreements, and been in possession since 2005 – were directly affected and were necessary parties. They were not impleaded. The order was passed without hearing them, violating natural justice and causing serious civil consequences.

• This was an error apparent on the face of record. The High Court ought to have allowed the review petitions. Its observation that “the review petitioners must have been aware of the pending PIL” was legally misconceived – mere awareness does not substitute for being a party and having a right to be heard.

• Held: The High Court committed a manifest mistake in rejecting the review petitions.

B. Writ jurisdiction cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title (Paras 6 to 6.4)

• Citing Sohan Lal vs. Union of India, State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh, and Shalini Shyam Shetty, the Court reiterated that the High Court under Article 226 cannot enter into investigation of disputed questions of title or ownership of property. A writ court cannot grant relief that requires deciding rival claims of title; the proper remedy is a civil suit or other appropriate legal proceeding.

• Applying to the case: In the PIL, the Municipal Council claimed that the land vested in it under various statutes (Section 100 of MP Municipalities Act, 1961, etc.). The State Government claimed ownership. The High Court, to conclude that the construction was “unauthorised” and “illegal”, had to implicitly reject the Municipality’s claim of ownership and accept the State’s claim. This was precisely an adjudication of a title dispute, which is beyond the scope of Article 226.

• Held: The High Court wrongfully exercised its public interest jurisdiction by intruding into the realm of ownership dispute between the Municipality and the State Government.

C. Merits – factual misjudgment (Paras 7 to 7.4)

• The Court examined the certified map. It showed that the shops were constructed on the boundary, abutting the public road. Behind the shops stood a Sanskar Kendra (community hall), a boys’ hostel, a school building, and then the large open area of ‘Dussehra Maidan’.

• The shops were far away from the actual Maidan. There was no reduction or obstruction of the open Maidan area. The festival of Dussehra had been celebrated every year without any complaint of obstruction.

• The Tehsildar’s initial report itself stated that “it was not possible to ascertain whether the possession was legal or illegal.”

• Held: The High Court misjudged the facts. The construction of shops did not hamper the cultural activities on the Maidan. Demolition was not warranted on factual grounds.

D. Public Interest Litigation – must not harm legitimate private interests (Paras 8 to 9)

• PIL aims to promote larger public interest. Orders passed in PIL should not derecognise or damage legitimate private interests or lawful rights of citizens who are not parties.

• The private appellants were not encroachers or illegal occupants in the strict sense – they had entered into possession through a lawful auction process, paying price and executing lease documents with the Municipal Council. They had been paying rent since 2005.

• Their fundamental right to carry on trade and business was at stake. They deserved at least an opportunity to be heard.

• The PIL appeared to have been filed with an oblique motive – the public interest petitioner was allegedly a disgruntled person who had not been allotted a shop.

• Held: The High Court’s order defeated the very idea of public interest by causing grave injustice to the private appellants.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

1. Necessary parties in PIL affecting third-party rights: When a Public Interest Litigation seeks relief that directly affects the rights, possession, or business of third parties (e.g., demolition of shops occupied by allottees), those third parties are necessary parties. Passing an order without impleading them or hearing them is a violation of natural justice and constitutes an “error apparent on the face of record” warranting review.

2. Review jurisdiction – non‑joinder of necessary parties is a ground for review: If an order is passed against a person who was not a party and who is directly affected, that order is tainted with an error apparent on the face of record. The High Court cannot dismiss review petitions on the ground that the review petitioners “ought to have known” about the pending proceedings. Awareness does not cure the absence of a legal right to be heard.

3. Writ court cannot adjudicate title disputes even in PIL: The prohibition against deciding disputed questions of title under Article 226 applies equally to Public Interest Litigations. If the legality of construction depends on who owns the land (Municipality vs. State), the writ court must relegate the parties to a civil suit or appropriate forum. Expropriating a party’s property (through demolition) based on a contested ownership claim is impermissible in writ jurisdiction.

4. PIL must not sacrifice legitimate private interests: Public interest is not served by destroying lawful private rights without due process. The Court reiterated that PIL is a medium to achieve public good, not to bypass procedural safeguards owed to citizens.

5. Factual assessment in PIL – deference to ground reality: Where a map/documentary evidence clearly shows that the alleged obstruction does not exist, the court must not order demolition based on theoretical assumptions. The actual use of the land for its intended purpose (Dussehra celebrations) without any complaint is a strong indicator.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

A. Error apparent on face of record – detailed reasoning

The Court traced the jurisprudence of review from Satyanarayan Hegde (1960) to B.C. Kameshwara (2023). The core principle: an error is “apparent on the face of record” when it is manifest, does not require elaborate argument, and is not a debatable point. The Court held that non‑joinder of necessary parties – persons whose rights are directly and adversely affected – is such an error. The allottees had a fundamental right to carry on trade (Article 19(1)(g)) and a right to property (though not a fundamental right, still a constitutional/legal right under Article 300A). The High Court’s order demolished their shops, destroying their business and possession, without ever giving them a chance to be heard. This was a clear violation of natural justice (audi alteram partem). The High Court’s observation that “the petition was pending and they should have been aware” is legally fallacious – mere knowledge does not give a person the status of a party, nor does it obligate them to intervene suo motu. The court has the duty to implead necessary parties or at least issue notice.

B. Title dispute – why writ court cannot decide

The Court cited Sohan Lal: “the decision of the Court would amount to a decree declaring the title and deciding the rival claims of title to the property in dispute.” Such a decree cannot be passed in writ proceedings because there is no provision for framing issues, leading evidence, cross‑examination, and appeal on facts. In the present case, both the Municipality and the State raised detailed claims of ownership based on historical gazettes, circulars, and statutes. The High Court would have to interpret Section 100 of the MP Municipalities Act, 1961, the effect of the Gwalior Government Gazette of 1929, and other documents – exactly the kind of exercise that requires a full‑fledged civil trial. By adjudicating this in PIL, the High Court usurped the jurisdiction of the civil court.

C. Factual error – map and ground reality

The Court analysed the map. The sequence from the road inward: (1) shops abutting the road; (2) Sanskar Kendra (community hall); (3) boys’ hostel; (4) school building; (5) large open Maidan. The shops were not on the Maidan; they were separated by substantial structures. Consequently, the allegation that shops “eaten up” the Maidan area was factually incorrect. The Court noted that the Tehsildar’s report itself was inconclusive, and the Municipality had never received any complaint about obstruction. The demolition order was therefore based on a mistaken factual premise.

D. Oblique motive of PIL petitioner

The Court noted the submission that the public interest petitioner was a person who had not been allotted a shop. While not conclusively deciding that the PIL was malafide, the Court observed that “the petition smacked to have been instituted with oblique motive.” This is a reminder that courts must scrutinise the bona fides of PIL petitioners, especially when the relief sought benefits a narrow group or targets specific individuals.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of fundamental procedural safeguards – even in Public Interest Litigation. It corrects a common but serious error: High Courts sometimes, in their zeal to protect “public interest,” issue sweeping orders that affect unrepresented third parties. The Court’s emphasis on the necessity of impleadment and hearing is constitutionally impeccable. The reiteration that Article 227/226 cannot be used to decide title disputes is well‑settled but often ignored; this judgment serves as a reminder. The factual finding based on the map – that the shops were not even on the Maidan – demonstrates the importance of proper evidence before ordering demolition.

Potential concerns: The judgment leaves open the possibility for the State to “take appropriate action under law against the Municipality for raising illegal constructions” (para 10.1). This is a somewhat ambiguous direction. If the State has already claimed ownership, it could initiate eviction proceedings in a civil court or revenue court. However, the Supreme Court has not clarified the legal status of the Municipality’s claim of vesting. This could lead to further litigation. Additionally, the judgment does not explicitly award any compensation or alternative accommodation to the allottees. While their shops are saved from demolition (for now), the underlying ownership dispute remains unresolved. Ideally, the Court could have directed the parties to seek a declaration of title before an appropriate civil court within a time frame.

Practical impact: This judgment will be heavily relied upon by citizens and private parties whose rights are affected by PIL orders. It will be cited to argue that they are necessary parties and must be heard before any adverse order. It will also discourage High Courts from entertaining PILs that require resolution of title disputes without a proper civil trial. For Municipal Councils, the judgment provides some protection: if they have constructed shops on land they claim to own, the State cannot simply use PIL to get demolition orders without proving its title. The judgment also serves as a caution against “demolition by PIL” – a growing trend where courts order demolition of structures without hearing occupants.

9. Final Outcome

• All four Civil Appeals (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16483-85/2015 and SLP(C) No. 16469/2015) are allowed.

• The impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014 is set aside.

• The orders dated 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court in Review Petition Nos. 123 of 2015 and 125 of 2015 are set aside.

• The Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014) before the High Court is dismissed.

• However, it is made clear that it shall be open to the State Government to take appropriate action, if it can, under law against the Municipality for raising illegal constructions (para 10.1). The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the merits of that question.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

By private parties (allottees, tenants, occupants facing demolition orders in PIL)

• Immediately seek impleadment: If a PIL is filed that threatens your property, business, or possession, file an application to be impleaded as a necessary party. Cite this judgment to argue that you have a direct and substantial interest and that no order should be passed without hearing you.

• Challenge final orders via review: If a court passes an adverse order without impleading you, file a review petition on the ground of “error apparent on the face of record” – non‑joinder of necessary party. The Court has now clarified that this is a valid ground for review.

• Object to adjudication of title in writ: If the opposite party raises disputed questions of ownership, submit that the writ court lacks jurisdiction to decide title. Rely on Sohan Lal and this judgment to argue that the matter must be relegated to a civil suit.

• Demonstrate absence of factual basis: If the allegation of obstruction or illegality is based on incorrect facts, produce maps, photographs, revenue records, and other documentary evidence to show that the construction does not harm the public purpose.

By Municipal Councils / local bodies

• Assert statutory vesting: If land is vested in the Municipality under a statute (e.g., Section 100 of MP Municipalities Act), clearly plead and prove the vesting. Produce gazette notifications, old circulars, and revenue records. If the State disputes title, argue that PIL is not the forum – the State should file a civil suit.

• Document long‑standing use: If the Municipality has been maintaining the land, collecting taxes, and the public has used the land for its intended purpose (e.g., Dussehra Maidan) without obstruction, place on record affidavits of users, photographs of festivals, and evidence of no complaints.

By PIL petitioners / activists

• Identify necessary parties at the outset: When filing a PIL seeking demolition or eviction, ensure that all persons likely to be affected (tenants, allottees, occupants) are impleaded as respondents. If the list is long, seek permission to serve through newspaper publication or to the association/body representing them.

• Avoid title disputes: Craft the PIL to focus on clear statutory violations (e.g., building without sanction, violation of master plan) rather than ownership claims. If ownership is disputed, the PIL is likely to be dismissed.

• Produce clear evidence: Before seeking demolition, collect irrefutable evidence – measured maps, satellite imagery, inspection reports from independent authorities, and proof that the construction actually obstructs the public purpose.

By High Courts (exercising PIL jurisdiction)

• Mandatory notice to affected parties: If the PIL seeks relief against specific structures or persons, direct notice to those persons before passing any interim or final order. Do not proceed on the assumption that “they should have known” or “they can file review later.”

• Do not decide title in PIL: If there is a genuine dispute over ownership of land, relegate the parties to a civil court. The writ court can still give directions to authorities to maintain status quo or prevent further illegal construction, but cannot adjudicate who owns the land.

• Verify factual basis: Before ordering demolition, call for a map, a revenue inspection report, or a commissioner’s report to ascertain the exact location, extent, and nature of the alleged obstruction. Do not rely solely on averments of the PIL petitioner.

By trial courts / subordinate courts

• Review petitions on non‑joinder: When reviewing orders, if it is shown that an affected party was not impleaded and the order directly prejudices them, treat that as a sufficient ground for review. Do not dismiss on the ground that the petition was pending and the party “ought to have intervened.”

11.  Court Lines

“An error which is self‑evident and which can be detected without resorting to a long‑drawn process of reasoning, is classified as ‘an error apparent on the face of record’. The error of this kind and nature justifies the court to exercise its powers of review.” (Para 5.5)

“When ‘an error apparent on the face of record’ is noticed or found to exist, the court should not hesitate to exercise the review powers to set right the injustice and restore the justice to the aggrieved party.” (Para 5.5)

“These persons – the review petitioners – were directly affected parties who were to suffer the consequences of the order and the directions without their representation in the proceedings and without opportunity to put forth their case. … The order of the High Court was not just in breach of natural justice but was also one which resulted into extremely serious civil consequences finally smothering the rights of the third parties – the review petitioners.” (Para 5.7)

“A judgment and order which is passed in absence of the necessary parties, without joining them and directions are issued by which they stand directly affected in terms of their rights, making them suffer the prejudice and the civil consequences, has to be treated as tainted with the vice of ‘an error apparent on the face of record’.” (Para 5.8)

“Given this well settled law, it is to be observed that a writ court would not be justified in granting the relief in a writ petition where grant of such relief is to be considered by necessarily touching upon and forming an opinion, directly or indirectly, on the aspects and issues concerning the title or ownership of the property.” (Para 6.3)

“Any public interest litigation in its outcome aims at promoting a larger public interest. … An order passed or directions issued in a public interest petition should not operate to derecognise or to damage legitimate private interest or the lawful rights enjoyed by the citizens or those third persons who may not be party to the proceedings. An order in the public interest petition should not become antithetic to the very idea and object underlying the public interest jurisdiction.” (Para 8)

“The private appellants before this Court in whose absence the High Court passed directions to demolish, were the allottees‑occupants of the shops. They could not have been treated to be encroachers or illegal occupants in that sense in as much as they had entered into occupation and possession pursuant to participation in the auction process and upon payment of price, as also after executing the lease documents with the Municipal Council.” (Para 8.1)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For persons whose property/business is threatened by a PIL

Immediate action: As soon as you become aware of a PIL that mentions your property or structure, file an impleadment application. Do not wait for the court to pass an order. In the application, state that you are a necessary party because:

• You are in lawful possession (attach proof – lease deed, allotment letter, tax receipts);

• Any order affecting the property will directly and irreversibly harm your rights;

• You have a defence on merits that the PIL petitioner has not disclosed.

If an adverse order is already passed without impleading you: File a review petition immediately. Rely heavily on this judgment – quote para 5.8 (“judgment passed in absence of necessary parties … tainted with vice of error apparent”). Also challenge the order on the ground that the writ court had no jurisdiction to decide title (if title was disputed). Do not file a fresh writ petition (which may be barred by res judicata or principles of constructive res judicata); review is the correct remedy.

If the court dismisses review: Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136. This judgment provides a strong precedent that non‑joinder of necessary parties in PIL is a jurisdictional error.

For municipal corporations / local authorities facing demolition orders

• Assert title clearly: In your counter‑affidavit, set out the statutory provisions under which the land vests in the municipality. Annex old gazettes, vesting orders, and revenue records. If the State claims ownership, challenge the maintainability of the PIL on the ground that it involves a title dispute.

• Produce factual evidence: File a map (certified by the municipal engineer) showing the location of structures relative to the public ground. If the structures are on the boundary and do not obstruct the public purpose, highlight that. Gather affidavits from local residents, shopkeepers, or cultural committee members stating that the Dussehra festival or other events have not been obstructed.

• Raise the defence of delay and acquiescence: If the structures have existed for many years (e.g., since 2005) and no complaint was ever made, argue that the PIL is an afterthought, possibly filed with ulterior motive.

For PIL petitioners / public-spirited individuals

Before filing: Conduct due diligence. Identify all persons who will be affected by the relief sought. If the number is large, ask the court to implead them through a public notice or by joining a representative body (e.g., shopkeepers’ association). Do not seek demolition without clear evidence that the construction is illegal and that it actually harms public interest.

Drafting the PIL: Avoid framing the relief as a title dispute. Instead, focus on violation of specific laws (building bye‑laws, master plan, forest laws, etc.) and on the public purpose being obstructed. If the respondent authority claims ownership, be prepared to show that its claim is legally untenable – but recognise that the writ court may decline to go into that.

If adverse order is passed against you (i.e., PIL dismissed), consider filing an appeal if you have a strong case. But note that the Supreme Court has now made it clear that affecting private rights without hearing is impermissible – so ensure your PIL is drafted to include all necessary parties.

For High Courts (while hearing PIL)

Checklist before issuing notice or interim order:

1. Does the PIL seek relief that will affect specific identifiable persons? If yes, direct notice to those persons. If their identity is not known, direct the petitioner to provide details or permit service through newspaper publication.

2. Is there a serious dispute about title/ownership of the land? If yes, do not proceed to decide the PIL on that basis. Instead, relegate the parties to civil court or direct the revenue authority to conduct a summary inquiry only for the purpose of determining public purpose, not for declaring title.

3. Before ordering demolition, appoint a commissioner (e.g., Tehsildar, Municipal Engineer, or an independent advocate) to inspect the site, prepare a map, and report whether the structures actually obstruct the public facility. Do not rely solely on the PIL petitioner’s photographs or allegations.

4. If the structures have existed for a long time and were created by a public authority (e.g., Municipality), consider whether it is equitable to demolish them without offering alternative accommodation or compensation to innocent allottees. The court may direct the authority to regularise or relocate.

For trial courts (executing demolition orders)

If a High Court order for demolition is challenged before you (e.g., in contempt proceedings), and you find that the order was passed without impleading the occupants, you may bring this judgment to the notice of the High Court in a reference or request for clarification. However, you cannot modify the High Court’s order – only the High Court or Supreme Court can. You can, however, stay the demolition if the occupants file a review petition and obtain a stay from the High Court.