ORDER Gangele, J. -- 1. All these writ petitions have been filed against demolition of 209 shops constructed by Municipal Council, Kailaras under the guise of encroachment. Writ Petition No.4900/2012 has been filed by Nagar Parishad, Kailaras and Writ Petition No.6950/2012 (Munabbar Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others), Writ Petition No.628/2012 (Omprakash Garg and others v. State of M.P. and others), and Writ Petition No.633/2013 (Devkripasad Bansal and another v. State of M.P. and others), have been filed by shopkeepers who had granted shops on lease. Because common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Nagar Parishad, Kailaras pleaded in the petition (Writ Petition No.4900/2012) that it had constructed shops in between 1982-1985, permission had been taken from the State Government before construction of shops. The shops were leased out to different persons. Without giving any notice or following the procedure prescribed under section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the shops were demolished. Videography was also made by Nagar Parishad at the time of demolition of 209 shops. Local administration imposed section 144 of Code of Criminal Proccedure so that the shopkeepers or public could not raise their demands against illegal demolition of shops. There was no encroachment at all and the shops were constructed over the land of Municipal Council and they were existence for last 32-35 years. 3. The Chief Municipal Officer, Kailaras on 14.5.2012 wrote a letter that due to demolition of shops without any proper notice an economic crisis was created. The Chief Municipal Officer asked information from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department to the effect as to what was the total area of the land of Public Works Department which was encroached upon by the Municipal Council and why earlier, the Public Works Department had not taken any action. Another letter dated 14.5.2012 was written by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, Gwalior and Chambal Division, Gwalior and also to the Senior Divisional Engineer (North) North Central Railway, Office of Divisional Manager (Works), Jhansi in this regard. 4. Another letter dated 14.5.2012 was written by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, Gwalior and Chambal Division, Gwalior and also to the Senior Divisional Engineer (North) North Central Railway, Office of Divisional Manager (Works), Jhansi in this regard. 4. Private persons in their writ petitions (Writ Petitions No.6950/2012, Writ Petition No.628/2013 and Writ Petition No.633/2013) pleaded that the shops were constructed by Municipal Council and they had been leased out to the petitioners under rehabilitation scheme. The foundation stone of construction of shops was laid by the then Union Minister of State for Railways, Late Shri Madhav Rao Scindia. An agreement was executed between the shop-owners and the Municipal Council at the time of grant of lease. Some persons had sold the shops. The petitioners further pleaded that they had been paying leased rent to the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat regularly and before demolition of shops, no notice ws given to them. Photographs of demolition of shops have also been filed along with the petitions. Some persons were arrested because they opposed demolition of shops. 5. The State, in the reply, pleaded that a complaint was received from M.P. Road Development Corporation that there were several encroachments over both the sides of Morena-Sabalgarh road and encroachment be removed for the purpose of smooth movement of traffic. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, who was competent to remove encroachment and register a case, directed to issue notice to the persons who had made encroachment over Government land on 7.5.2012. The next date was fixed 14.5.2012. Nobody appeared on behalf of persons, neither any reply was filed. Hence, he imposed fine of Rs.200/- and also ordered removal of encroachment. Thereafter, encroachment was removed. Because there was encroachment on public street and it was required to be removed for the purpose of smooth movement of traffic, hence, encroachment was removed and the shops were demolished. 6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, North Central Railways, Gwalior also issued notices to the encroachers for removal of encroachment on Railways land. The Railways authorities also filed their reply. They pleaded that there was encroachment over the land and it was removed by the competent authority. Notices were issued to remove the encorachment but no reply was filed. Thereafter, order of removal of encroachment was passed. 7. The Railways authorities also filed their reply. They pleaded that there was encroachment over the land and it was removed by the competent authority. Notices were issued to remove the encorachment but no reply was filed. Thereafter, order of removal of encroachment was passed. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat constructed number of shops in between 1982-85. The shops were leased out to different persons under rehabilitation scheme and the shopkeepers were in possession over the shops. They had been paying leased rent regularly to the Nagar Panchayat and also paid premium of the time of grant of lease. No notice was issued by the authority to Nagar Panchayat before demolition of shops. Record has been produced by learned Additional Advocate General for the State. The proceedings in all the cases are same in nature. It is mentioned in the cases which were registered that the Divisional Manager, M.P. Rural Development Authority vide letter dated 1.3.2012 informed that there was encroachment on the Government land. On the basis of aforesaid letter, a team was constituted. The aforesaid team reported that number of persons i.e. shopkeepers had encroached over the Government land after making construction of pukka shops over on area 10 ft. x 10 ft. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department the then designated Tahsildar ordered issuance of notice on 7.5.2012 after recording the aforesaid finding. Thereafter, case was listed on 14.5.2012. On the aforesaid date, serving employee recorded that notices were issued to the persons, however, they refused to take notices, hence, notices were affixed. The authority proceeded ex parte against all the persons who were granted lease of the shops and imposed fine amount of Rs.200/- and ordered removal of encroachment. 8. There is a report on the back side of notices that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. However, no fact has been mentioned by serving employee as to when he tried to serve the notices. The date is mentioned as 7.5.2012. The same date when the order was passed by Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. 7.5.2012. On the same date, serving employee recorded a finding that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. In all cases, the date mentioned by serving employee is same i.e. 7.5.2012. The date is mentioned as 7.5.2012. The same date when the order was passed by Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. 7.5.2012. On the same date, serving employee recorded a finding that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. In all cases, the date mentioned by serving employee is same i.e. 7.5.2012. In our opinion, it was not possible that on the same date, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order for registration of cases and issuance of notices and on the same date, the serving employee prepared and served the notices and recorded a finding that the shopkeepers refused to take notices. It is also a fact that nonotice was issued to Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat although Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat had constructed the shops. The shopkeepers were lessors and they had been paying rent regularly to Nagar Panchayat. Apart from this, no notice was served on the shopkeepers also. The authority had taken a decision for demolition of shops and thereafter, the documents were prepared, which is clear from the record. 9. Section 248 of the Code provides penalty for unatuhorizedly taking possession of land. The said section is reads as under : “248. Penalty for unauthorisedly taking possession of land. -- (1) Any person who unauthorizedly takes or remains in possession of any unoccupied land, abadi, service land or any other which has been set apart for any special purpose under section 237 or upon any land which is the property of Government, or any authority, body corporate, or institution constituted or established under any State enactment, may be summarily ejected by order of the Tahsildar and any crop which may be standing on the land and any building or other work which he may have constructed thereon, if nor removed by him within such time as the Tahsildar may fix shall be liable to forfeiture. Any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Tahsildar may direct and the cost of removal of any crop, building or other work and of all works necessary, to restore the land to its original condition shall be recoverable as an arear of land revenue from him. Any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Tahsildar may direct and the cost of removal of any crop, building or other work and of all works necessary, to restore the land to its original condition shall be recoverable as an arear of land revenue from him. Such person shall also be liable at the discretion of the Tahsildar to pay the rent of the land for the period of unauthorized occupation at twice the rate admissible for such land in locality and to a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and to a further fine which may extend to twenty rupees for every day on which such unauthorized occupation or possession continues after the date of first ejectment. The Tahsildar may apply the whole or any part of the fine to compensate persons, who may in his opinion have suffered loss or injury from the encroachment. Proviso to section 2A of section 248 of the MPLRC further provides that no action under this sub-section shall be taken. It is as under : (i) unless a notice is issued calling upon such person to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on a day to be specified in the notice and to show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison; (ii) in respect of encroachments on Government and Nazul lands for the settlement of which the Government have issued orders from time to time. Provided further that the Sub-Divisional Officer may order the release of such person from detention before the expiry of the period mentioned in the warrant if he is satisfied that the unauthorized possession has been vacated : Provided also that no woman shall be arrested or detained under this sub-section. (2B) The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sub-section (2A).” From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that no action can be taken under this section unless a notice is issued calling of such person to appear before the authority/SDO. 10. In the present case, no notice was issued to the Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat who had constructed the shops. On paper, it is noted that the notice was issued to the occupied shopkeepers, who had received the shops on lease. After appreciation of facts, it is clear that it was a paper formality. 10. In the present case, no notice was issued to the Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat who had constructed the shops. On paper, it is noted that the notice was issued to the occupied shopkeepers, who had received the shops on lease. After appreciation of facts, it is clear that it was a paper formality. Not a single shopkeeper appeared before the authority because no notice was served on them. In our opinion, the notice was issued on the same date when the authority had initiated proceedings after completing certain formalities on paper. 11. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Meghmala and others v. G. Narasimha Reddy and others [ (2010)8 SCC 383 ], has observed as under : “48. Even the State authorities cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. The authorities cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of the rule of law. The Government can resume possession only in a manner known to or recognized by law and not otherwise.” 12. From the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is clear that authority cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of rule of law and the Government can resume possession only in a manner known or recognized by law. In the present case, the authorities have acted in such a manner that they became the law unto themselves. The possession of the property of the petitioners have been taken in most arbitrarily manner without following the due procedure of law. 13. Now, the question before the Court is that what relief could be granted to the petitioners. It is a fact that the said authorities without due process of law, in an arbitrary manner, demolished the shops of the petitioners. The petitioners have been deprived of the valuable right of property. They were allotted the shops by Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat on lease. They had paid premium to the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat at the time of allotment of shops. Thereafter, they had been continuously paying the rent. Their business has completely been shattered. 14. The petitioners have been deprived of the valuable right of property. They were allotted the shops by Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat on lease. They had paid premium to the Municipal Council/Nagar Panchayat at the time of allotment of shops. Thereafter, they had been continuously paying the rent. Their business has completely been shattered. 14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Manohar [ (2005)2 SCC 126 ], has affirmed the judgment of Allahabad High Court, in which the High Court ordered payment of compensation on account of arbitrarily deprivation of property by the State because Article 200A of the Constitution prescribes right to hold property. Earlier, right to hold the property was a fundamental right. It has been subsequently amended and now, right to hold property is a legal right. However, the aforesaid right could not be taken away in arbitrary manner. The Municipal Council in Annexure P-1 filed along with Writ Petition No.4900/2012, has specifically pleaded that the shopkeepers were paid premium of Rs.73,250/- and in some cases Rs.57,000/- at the time of allotment of shops. The shopkeepers had been paying rent of shops regularly. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it would be just and proper that respondent-State is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to each of the shopkeepers on account of illegal demolition of shops. 15. It is obligatory on the State to conduct on enquiry and fix the liability that who had erred in illegal demolition of shops and identity the officers who were involved in illegal demolition of shops. The State may also conduct on enquiry against the aforesaid officers so that in future such type of arbitrary and illegal activities could be prevented. 16. Consequently, all the petitioners are allowed. It is directed that the respondent-State shall pay a compensation of Rs.1 lac, each to the shopkeepers who were allotted the shops by Nagar Parishad/Nagar Panchayat as mentioned in Annexure P-1 (in Writ Petition No.4900/2012). The State shall further conduct an enquiry and find out the officers and employees who were responsible for illegal demolition of shops. The order be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.