📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Suyash Dwivedi
Politics
MP High Court Receives Plea Against Ujjain Municipal Law on Simhastha Road Widening
✍️ Live Law
🗓 06 Oct 2026, 07:17 PM
👁 12
A plea has been filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging a municipal law that permits widening of the road for the Simhastha Kumbh festival, alleging the law circumvents land acquisition procedures.
The Simhastha Kumbh, a major pilgrimage held every twelve years in Ujjain, has prompted the Ujjain Municipal Corporation to propose widening a key access road to accommodate the influx of devotees.
A legal team representing affected landowners has filed a plea in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, contesting the municipal ordinance that authorizes the road expansion. The petition argues that the ordinance bypasses the statutory land acquisition framework, thereby infringing on property rights.
The petitioners claim that the municipal law was enacted without the required public consultation and without following the procedures mandated by the Land Acquisition Act. They seek a stay on the road widening project until a proper acquisition process is undertaken.
The High Court has acknowledged receipt of the plea and is expected to schedule a hearing. The case highlights the tension between infrastructure development for large-scale events and the protection of individual property rights in India.
A legal team representing affected landowners has filed a plea in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, contesting the municipal ordinance that authorizes the road expansion. The petition argues that the ordinance bypasses the statutory land acquisition framework, thereby infringing on property rights.
The petitioners claim that the municipal law was enacted without the required public consultation and without following the procedures mandated by the Land Acquisition Act. They seek a stay on the road widening project until a proper acquisition process is undertaken.
The High Court has acknowledged receipt of the plea and is expected to schedule a hearing. The case highlights the tension between infrastructure development for large-scale events and the protection of individual property rights in India.