Property Ownership Or Tenancy Dispute Can't Stall Action Under Section 152 BNSS To Vacate Dangerous Building: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the pendency of a civil dispute over ownership or tenancy of a property cannot prevent authorities from taking preventive action under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to vacate a dangerous building and safeguard human life. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 314]

Justice Himanshu Joshi made the observation while dismissing three petitions challenging orders directing the occupants to vacate a century-old building in Sagar district after it was found to be structurally unsafe.

Emphasising that the building's condition was established through inspection reports, expert opinions and the statutory framework governing removal of dangerous structures, the Court observed,

"The existence of civil litigation regarding title or tenancy by itself does not denude the competent authority of its statutory power to take preventive measures where a structure is found to be dangerous and poses a threat to public safety. The impugned proceedings do not adjudicate ownership or tenancy rights and are confined to the limited object of preventing public nuisance and safeguarding human life". 

The petitions challenged a March 14, 2026 order of the Revisional Court affirming the City Magistrate's direction requiring the petitioners to vacate the premises. The authorities had found the over 100-year-old building to be in a dilapidated condition and likely to collapse, posing a danger to its occupants and the public.

The petitioners, who claimed to be occupants of different portions of the building, alleged that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of Shri Digambar Jain Sagroday Teerth Trust in collusion with the Municipal Corporation to evict them under the guise of public safety. They argued that the proceedings under Section 152 BNSS, which empowers Executive Magistrates to issue conditional orders for removal of public nuisance, were initiated without granting them an opportunity of hearing.

They further contended that the dispute was essentially one relating to ownership and tenancy, and that the structural reports prepared by the Municipal Corporation, PWD and Tehsildar, without associating them, could not be treated as conclusive proof that the building was unsafe.

The counsel for the State argued that the proceedings were initiated to 'avert imminent danger to human life'. The counsel argued that post inspection the building was found to be over 100 years old and is structurally unsafe and will collapse any time.  

The counsel further argued that during the proceedings, evidence including reports and photographs of the building was showcased and the City Magistrate rightly concluded that continued residence poses serious danger to human life.

After hearing the parties, the Court emphasized,

"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 noted that the evidence on record shows that the building is more than a century old and structurally weak, the court noted that the collapse of the building would not only harm the occupants but also the general public as the building abuts a busy public road. 

The court further rejected the petitioners' contention that they were not afforded the opportunity of hearing, noting that the records show that after the preliminary order, objections were filed by the petitioners. 

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-14795-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 314

For Petitioners: Advocates Shivnarayan Verma, Dharmendra Soni and Arvind Soni

For State: Advocates Guru Prasanna Singh Parihar with Devendra Shukla

For Municipal Corporation: Advocate Kunal Thakre

Click here to read/download the Order