The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anand Kumar Kedia, promoter group member managing Associated Alcohols and Breweries, challenging the demolition notice issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation to initiate a proposed widening of a 30-metre road near his residential home. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 349]

Noting that Kedia has suppressed material facts, the bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt imposed a cost of ₹20,000.

"Though, in view of the fact that petitioner has suppressed material fact, this Court is of the opinion to dismiss the petition by imposing heavy exemplary cost, keeping in mind about the conduct of the petitioner who has filed the petition by suppressing the material fact, which means to abuse the process of law. However, considering the contention of petitioner that petitioner is not aware of the said fact, the Court deems fit to impose cost to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), which shall be deposited in the account of M.P. Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore by the petitioner within seven days from today and a receipt thereof be submitted in the Registry of this Bench".

Kedia has filed a writ petition challenging the demolition notice of August 11, 2026, issued by the Building Officer of the Indore Municipal Corporation. He sought quashing of the notice and direction restraining the authorities from undertaking the road widening on his property without following statutory procedures under M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

Per Kedia, he was the lawful owner and in physical possession of a residential property in Indore. He claimed that the property was purchased through a sale deed of April 4, 2017, and that the revenue authorities had subsequently carried out formal demarcation of the property.

Kedia contended that the Town and Country Planning Department had granted him permission in 2019 and that the Municipal Corporation had granted building permission for residential premises in 2020. He alleged that the Corporation subsequently sought to demolish a portion of his premises for the road widening project under the Indore Development Plan of 2021.

The counsel for Kedia argued that the authorities had altered the road alignment and sought to take over his property without following the procedure prescribed in the Adhiniyam of 1973. He also alleged violations of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution and contended that the authorities could not bypass the acquisition laws by invoking Section 305 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

The counsel for the Municipal Corporation opposed the petition, arguing that a joint inspection had revealed that Kedia had encroached upon government land. It was argued that the road widening project was being undertaken per the Development Plan of 2021, which envisaged a 20-metre road connecting Bypass Road to the Lighthouse Project and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana through the City Forest.

The counsel informed the court that Kedia was granted a proper opportunity of hearing and that the decision was taken after following the necessary protocols. Further, it was contended that the Development Plan was prepared after inviting objections and suggestions. Subsequently, the development plan was finalised, and once prepared, it is binding upon the corporation per the established principles of law.

Referring to the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v Indore Municipal Corporation [2017 1 SCC 667], wherein it was observed that the development plan is binding and has to be implemented by the Corporation. The counsel argued that Kedia has wrongly averred that Section 305 of the 1956 Act was applied to circumvent acquisition laws.

The court noted that Kedia was trying to make the case that the proposed government land is burdened with illegal encroachments on the southern side, and despite that, the government was to execute the eviction of Kedia from his legitimately owned property.

However, the court noted that the same was misconceived as the reply of the respondents clearly demonstrates that Kedia has put up the construction of the wall by including the Government land into his own land.

Further, the bench noted that Kedia failed to disclose the earlier directions given in WP 27726/2026 wherein the court had directed the government authorities to carry out a joint inspection and supply the report of the same to Kedia. However, the court also noted that Kedia argued that the said documents were never supplied to him.

Thus, the bench held, "In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not properly disclosed all the relevant facts which are very material for the decision of the petition and therefore, it can be considered as abuse of process of law by such suppression of material fact. Resultantly, the general rule of denial of relief is required to be applied".

The bench further noted that Kedia's averments "though sounds to be attractive, but lacks in merits". The court also noted that Kedia has suppressed the fact that the report of the joint inspection was provided to him.

Emphasizing the Latin maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' (false in one thing, false in everything), the court noted that the petitioner had suppressed material documents which disentitled Kedia from any relief prayer in this petition.

The bench found no arbitrariness or illegality in the actions of the corporation. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs.

Case Title: Anand Kumar Kedia v State of Madhya Pradesh, WRIT PETITION No. 33717 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 349

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kishore Shrivastava with Advocate Amit Dubey

For State: Advocate Rishi Tiwari

For Indore Municipal Corporation: Advocate Tanishq Patel

Click here to read/download the Order