Legal Analysis: Prem Porwal and Others vs. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 435
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria & Justice Vikram Nath 
Judgment Author: Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Decision: March 19, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment and orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a Public Interest Litigation and subsequent review petitions.

Synopsis of the Judgment

A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh alleging that the Municipal Council, Khachrod had illegally constructed 54 shops on land known as ‘Dussehra Maidan’, which was reserved for Dussehra festival and cultural events. The High Court allowed the PIL and directed demolition of all shops, without impleading the allottees/occupants of those shops. The allottees (private appellants) filed review petitions, which were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed two fundamental errors: (i) it passed an order demolishing shops affecting the rights of third parties (allottees) without making them parties and without hearing them – this constituted an “error apparent on the face of record” warranting review; (ii) the writ court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title/ownership of property, yet the High Court had to decide the ownership dispute between the Municipal Council and the State Government to conclude that the construction was illegal. Additionally, on facts, the map showed that the shops were on the boundary, far away from the actual Maidan, separated by school, community hall, and hostel buildings; there was no obstruction to Dussehra celebrations. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and review orders, dismissed the PIL, but left it open to the State to take appropriate action against the Municipality under law if permissible.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Prem Porwal and Others etc. vs. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Others (with connected appeals) Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 16483-85 of 2015 and SLP(C) No. 16469 of 2015 Bench Justice N.V. Anjaria &  Justice Vikram Nath   (Division Bench) Date of Decision March 19, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 435 Appeal From Judgment dated 20.04.2015 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2014, and orders dated 15.05.2015 in Review Petition Nos. 123 of 2015 and 125 of 2015

2. Legal Framework

Laws / Rules Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 136 (special leave to appeal to Supreme Court).

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XLVII Rule 1 (review of judgments).

• Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961: Section 100 (vesting of property in Municipality).

• Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act (erstwhile), Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, Gwalior State Municipalities Act – referred to for vesting of land.

• Public Interest Litigation jurisprudence: Principles governing maintainability and exercise of PIL jurisdiction.

Precedents Cited

1. Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960) – Definition of “error apparent on the face of record” as one that does not require long-drawn reasoning or debatable issues.

2. T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 2 SCC 526 – Review jurisdiction – error apparent on face of record.

3. Sohan Lal vs. Union of India (1957) – Disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226.

4. State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh (1992) – Writ court not appropriate for deciding title disputes.

5. Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) – Limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – disputed questions of title not to be gone into.

6. Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 – Review on ground of error apparent on face of record.

7. State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta (2022) 17 SCC 255 – Review jurisdiction – sufficient grounds.

8. Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Shaik Azhar (2023) 13 SCC 515 – Review principles.

9. B.C. Kameshwara vs. K. Sreeramulu (2023) 8 SCC 11 – Review – error apparent.

What the Judgment is About

The judgment addresses the boundaries of public interest litigation jurisdiction, particularly: (i) the requirement to implead necessary parties whose rights are directly affected before issuing adverse orders; (ii) the limited scope of review jurisdiction and when non-joinder of necessary parties constitutes an “error apparent on the face of record”; (iii) the impropriety of writ courts adjudicating disputed questions of title/ownership of property; and (iv) the factual assessment of whether construction of shops on the periphery of a public ground actually obstructs the intended use of that ground. The Supreme Court reiterates that

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.