While upholding the order passed by a City Magistrate directing vacation of certain premises, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the scope of interference under Section 528 of the BNSS is limited and unless the impugned orders disclose patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or abuse of the process of law, the Court would not substitute its own satisfaction with that of the statutory authorities.

The three petitions before the High Court arose out of the same proceedings initiated under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging an order seeking quashment of the revisional order as well as the order directing vacation of premises situated at Loharwali Gali, Bariyaghat, Sagar, on the ground that the structure was found to be dilapidated, dangerous and likely to cause public nuisance and danger to life.

The Single Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held, “The scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is limited. Unless the impugned orders disclose patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or abuse of the process of law, this Court would not substitute its own satisfaction for that of the statutory authorities. In the present case, no such infirmity is demonstrated. On the contrary, the impugned orders are supported by contemporaneous inspection reports, expert opinions and the statutory scheme governing removal of dangerous structures.”

“Merely because the petitioners dispute the correctness of the expert reports would not justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, particularly when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the competent authorities on the basis of technical evidence”, it added.

Advocate Shivnarayan Verma represented the Petitioner while Advocate Guru Prasanna Singh Parihar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners, claiming to be occupants/tenants of different portions of the said premises, submitted that the proceedings under Section 152 BNSS were initiated at the instance of Shri Digambar Jain Sagroday Teerth Trust in collusion with the Municipal Corporation with the sole object of evicting the petitioners from the premises under the guise of public safety. It was also pleaded that the Court, while disposing of the Petition, had relegated the parties to avail the revisional remedy and granted interim protection, but the revisional Court failed to appreciate the grounds raised and affirmed the order of the City Magistrate without independently examining the legality of the proceedings.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the jurisdiction exercised by the City Magistrate under Section 152 BNSS is preventive in nature and is intended to remove imminent danger and public nuisance. The Bench noted that the material considered by the authorities included reports of the Structural Engineer, the Public Works Department, the Tehsildar and the Municipal Corporation, all consistently opining that the building was more than a century old, structurally weak, unsafe for habitation and likely to collapse, thereby endangering not only its occupants but also the general public.

The Bench refused to accept the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, considering that after the preliminary order, objections were filed, the petitioners approached the Court in writ proceedings and thereafter availed the statutory revisional remedy pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court

Holding that the impugned orders were supported by contemporaneous inspection reports, expert opinions and the statutory scheme governing removal of dangerous structures, the Bench dismissed the petitions.

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Shivnarayan Verma

Respondent: Advocates Guru Prasanna Singh Parihar, Devendra Shukla, Kunal Thakre

Click here to read/download Order


Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.