Supreme Court: PIL Jurisdiction Cannot Decide Property Title; Demolition of 54 Shops Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice

News Citation : 2026 LN (SC) 435

May 1, 2026 : In a significant ruling clarifying the contours of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court in Prem Porwal & Ors. v. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati & Ors. (2026 INSC 435) held that writ courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputes relating to title or ownership of property, either directly or indirectly.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s आदेश directing demolition of 54 shops constructed by the Nagar Palika, Khachrod, observing that such directions impermissibly entered into a contested ownership dispute between the Municipal Council and the State Government.

The Court underscored that PIL jurisdiction, though wide, is not meant to resolve civil disputes over property title. It held that granting relief in such cases would necessarily require forming an opinion on ownership, which falls outside the permissible scope of writ jurisdiction.

The controversy arose from a PIL alleging that the Municipal Council had illegally constructed shops on land designated as ‘Dussehra Maidan’, reserved for cultural activities. Acting on the plea, the High Court ordered demolition of the structures. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court failed on multiple counts.

First, it noted a serious procedural lapse: the allottees and occupants of the shops—who had acquired possession through a lawful auction process and had been in occupation since 2005—were not impleaded as parties. The Court held that passing demolition orders without hearing affected parties amounted to a clear breach of natural justice and constituted an “error apparent on the face of record.”

Second, the Court emphasized that both the State Government and the Municipal Council had asserted competing claims over the land. By declaring the construction “unauthorised,” the High Court had effectively adjudicated a title dispute, which should have been left to a competent civil court.

On facts, the Supreme Court also found that the High Court misappreciated the physical layout of the site. Relying on a certified municipal map, the Bench observed that the shops were situated along the boundary and did not encroach upon or obstruct the actual ‘Dussehra Maidan’, where cultural activities continued unhindered.

Importantly, the Court cautioned against misuse of PIL jurisdiction. It reiterated that PILs are intended to advance public good and must not be allowed to undermine legitimate private rights, especially of third parties not before the court. The Bench also noted that the petition appeared to be motivated, filed by a disgruntled individual, thereby distorting the purpose of public interest litigation.

Allowing all four appeals, the Supreme Court quashed both the High Court’s original judgment and the subsequent review orders, and dismissed the PIL. However, it clarified that the State Government remains free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law regarding the legality of the construction, without any observation on merits.