Demolition Notice: MP High Court Directs Personal Hearing Before Action On Al-Falah University Founder's Ancestral Property
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (November 20), granted an opportunity of hearing to Abdul Majid in his petition challenging the notice issued by the Cantonment Board Office for the removal of illegal encroachment over certain parts of his residential house. For context, the disputed property is the ancestral home of Hammad Ahmed, father of Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, founder of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (November 20), granted an opportunity of hearing to Abdul Majid in his petition challenging the notice issued by the Cantonment Board Office for the removal of illegal encroachment over certain parts of his residential house.
For context, the disputed property is the ancestral home of Hammad Ahmed, father of Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, founder of Al-Falah University & chairman of Al-Falah Group.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Pranay Verma noted that the petitioner could be afforded an opportunity of hearing, considering that the initial notices were issued almost 30 years ago, and thereafter now the impugned notice was served. It observed;
"From a perusal of the impugned notice, it appears that though earlier notices were issued to the petitioner but they were in the year 1996/1997 i.e. almost 30 years ago and thereafter now the impugned notice has been issued. If any action was to be taken against the petitioner after a period of almost 30 years from the date of issuance of previous notice, he ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing".
Per the petition, the house was under exclusive ownership and possession of the late Hammad Ahmad for about 50 years. This house was constructed with the consent and approval of the then-cantonment officer.
However, after the demise of Hammad Ahmad, his 13 family members executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Jawad Ahmad Siddiquie. Subsequently, in 2021, Jawad Ahmad Siddiquie, son of Hammad, executed a hibanama (a gift deed under Muslim Law for transferring property) in favour of Abdul Majid out of sheer love and affection.
Later, on November 19 2025, Jawad Ahmad Siddiquie received a notice to remove the excess construction from a certain section of the residential house. The petition stated that only three days were granted to the petitioner to remove the alleged illegal/excessive construction of the residential house, threatening to demolish the structure in case of non-compliance.
The petition asserted that no action was taken for 29 years since the two notices were issued in 1996. Additionally, it was stated that the excessive construction was neither congesting the traffic nor encroaching on the road as alleged in the impugned notice.
The petition also stated that no construction was undertaken after execution of the Hibanama. Therefore, the petition sought to quash the impugned notice. Additionally, it sought directions against the authorities, restraining them from taking any action against the petitioner or any other occupants of this house unless proper measurements are carried out by an expert committee.
The court, while disposing of the petition, directed;
"Thus, in the available facts of the case, it is directed that the petitioner should file his reply along with all relevant documents before the respondents/competent authority within a period of 15 days from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be afforded due opportunity of hearing and thereafter a reasoned and speaking order in the matter shall be passed. Till the said exercise is completed and for a period of ten days thereafter, in case the order is against the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken against him".
Case Title: Abdul Majid v Union [WP-45707-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 258
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia with Advocate Rizwan Khan
For Respondent: Advocate Ashutosh Nimgaonkar