Introduction:

In Nidhi Pande and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (WP No. 13962 of 2024), the Madhya Pradesh High Court once again examined the complex intersection of urban governance, civic infrastructure, and citizens’ participatory rights, while dealing with persistent waterlogging issues plaguing residential areas of Jabalpur city. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Vivek Jain directed the High Level Technical Committee of the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation to grant an opportunity of hearing to residents and stakeholders before finalising its report on remedial measures, particularly concerning a proposed drainage or “nala” project. At the same time, the Court categorically clarified that no private land would be acquired or used for the proposed project, thereby allaying apprehensions of affected residents. The order arose out of an interlocutory application filed by an intervenor in a writ petition that had already been disposed of earlier, but which continued to generate concerns due to evolving administrative actions and fears of encroachment on private property. The judgment underscores the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice in urban planning decisions, especially when such decisions directly impact residential rights, property interests, and quality of life in rapidly urbanising cities.

Background of the Litigation and Earlier Court Directions:

The genesis of the litigation lay in a writ petition filed by residents of a housing society in Jabalpur who complained of chronic and recurring waterlogging, particularly during the monsoon season, which severely affected habitability, mobility, and public health. The petitioners attributed the problem to clogged sewer lines, encroachments on drainage channels, lack of desilting, and poor municipal planning. Taking cognisance of these grievances, a Coordinate Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by an order dated 3 March 2025, disposed of the main writ petition after recording assurances given by the Municipal Corporation. The Corporation had undertaken to carry out proactive measures including regular desilting and cleaning of sewer drains, removal of encroachments from sewer lines, and preventive maintenance, so as to avoid recurrence of waterlogging. The Court directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, to act strictly in terms of the affidavit filed before it, thereby closing the writ petition on the basis of executive assurances rather than adjudicating contested factual issues. However, while the writ petition stood formally disposed of, the practical implementation of remedial measures remained a live and sensitive issue on the ground, particularly when new technical proposals such as the construction of a “nala” began to emerge.

Interlocutory Application and Apprehensions of the Intervenor:

The present proceedings arose out of an interlocutory application filed by an intervenor, who was a resident and landholder in the affected area. The intervenor expressed serious apprehension that the proposed drainage channel or nala, being considered as part of the waterlogging mitigation strategy, might pass through land abutting or adjoining his private plot. According to the intervenor, any such alignment could potentially infringe upon private property rights, cause diminution of land value, and create long-term disturbances. The intervenor submitted that while addressing waterlogging was undoubtedly necessary, it could not be done at the cost of unilateral administrative action affecting private landowners without consultation or hearing. The application was thus not aimed at stalling remedial measures altogether, but at ensuring that affected stakeholders were heard before irreversible decisions were taken. This apprehension gained significance in light of the fact that the Municipal Corporation had constituted a High Level Technical Committee, whose report was awaited and which was expected to form the basis of future infrastructural decisions.

Submissions on Behalf of the Municipal Corporation:

Counsel appearing for the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation submitted before the Court that, in compliance with earlier directions and in order to address the technical complexity of the waterlogging issue, a High Level Technical Committee comprising experts had already been constituted. It was submitted that the Committee was in the process of examining the issue comprehensively, and that all future actions would strictly be taken in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Importantly, the Corporation clarified, on instructions, that no construction was proposed on any private land, nor was there any plan to acquire private land for the nala project. This clarification was crucial, as it directly addressed the core anxiety expressed by the intervenor. The Corporation sought to reassure the Court that the remedial measures would be confined to public land and existing drainage alignments, and that private property rights would not be disturbed. At the same time, the Corporation resisted the suggestion that individual residents should be given a hearing before the Committee, contending that technical committees function on expert inputs and not through adversarial hearings.

Opposition by the Original Petitioners and Counter-Arguments:

Interestingly, the request of the intervenor for being heard by the Technical Committee was initially opposed by the original petitioners, who had approached the Court complaining of waterlogging. Their counsel argued that allowing multiple stakeholders to intervene and seek hearings at the technical committee stage could delay urgent remedial measures and prolong the suffering of residents already affected by water stagnation. It was contended that the writ petition had already been disposed of on the basis of assurances, and reopening the process by permitting fresh objections might frustrate timely implementation. The petitioners emphasised that waterlogging was a recurring civic menace requiring swift executive action, and that excessive procedural requirements could become counterproductive. Thus, the Court was faced with a delicate balance between administrative efficiency and participatory fairness, with competing interests on both sides.

Court’s Analysis on Fairness and Stakeholder Participation:

After considering the rival submissions, the Division Bench adopted a nuanced and balanced approach. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the waterlogging problem and the necessity of technical solutions, but at the same time emphasised that principles of natural justice and fairness cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. The Bench held that when remedial measures have the potential to affect the rights or legitimate expectations of residents and landholders, even indirectly, stakeholders must be given an opportunity to place their concerns before the decision-making body. The Court was particularly persuaded by the fact that the Technical Committee’s report would likely form the basis of long-term infrastructural decisions, and therefore, inclusive consultation would enhance, rather than undermine, the quality and legitimacy of the outcome. Without turning the Committee proceedings into a full-fledged adjudicatory process, the Court found it reasonable and just to permit stakeholders to be heard.

Clarification on Non-Acquisition of Private Land:

A significant aspect of the Court’s order was the clear recording of the Municipal Corporation’s statement that “no construction is proposed on any private land or by acquiring any private land.” By expressly noting this assurance, the Court effectively insulated private landowners from fears of compulsory acquisition or encroachment under the guise of civic improvement. This clarification also served a broader constitutional purpose, reaffirming that urban development projects must respect property rights unless lawfully curtailed through due process. The Court’s approach reflects judicial sensitivity to the anxieties of citizens who often perceive infrastructure projects as opaque and coercive, particularly in urban settings where land values and residential security are at stake.

Court’s Final Directions and Disposition:

In light of the above reasoning, the High Court disposed of the interlocutory application with a clear direction that the High Level Technical Committee shall grant an opportunity of hearing to residents and stakeholders, including the intervenor, before finalising its report. The Court did not prescribe a rigid procedure or timeline for such hearing, thereby leaving flexibility to the Committee to adopt a suitable mechanism consistent with its technical mandate. At the same time, by disposing of the application, the Court ensured that the matter did not remain pending indefinitely and that the focus remained on resolution rather than litigation. The earlier assurances and directions contained in the order dated 3 March 2025 were left undisturbed, and the present order was intended to supplement, not supplant, those directions.