ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. Appellant/Petitioner has filed W.A. No. 1119/2022 challenging the order dt. 23-8-20222, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 7667/2010. Appellant/Petitioner has also filed W.A. No. 1120/2022 challenging the order dt. 23-8-2022, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 4120/2010. 2. The controversy involved in both the appeals is the same, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.A. No. 1120/2022, which are as under :— (i) The appellant/petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition claiming himself to be the owner and in possession of temple and nearby land of survey No. 2613 at Datia being a disciple (chela) of Mahant Amardas of Shri Narsingh Temple. The petitioner was served with a notice dt. 9-7-2010 by SDO – Additional Tahsildar PWD, Datia alleging that he has encroached upon the government land bearing survey No. 2255 and sought explanation from him till 16-7-2010. The petitioner appeared and submitted a detailed reply that there is no encroachment on Survey No. 2255, whereas the petitioner constructed the shop as per the permission of Survey No. 2613. Respondent No. 6 fixed the date for further appearance on 28-7-2010. However, without concluding the proceeding initiated under section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Code), the respondents demolished 14 shops on 18th July, 2010, which resulted in the loss of Rs. 40 lakh to the petitioner as well as to the occupants of the shops. (ii) According to the appellant, Mahant Amardas was the exclusive owner of Shri Narsingh Temple and the property attached to the temple situated on Survey No. 2613 area of 0.129 hectares. After the death of Mahant Amardas, he became a successor under the ‘Guru Parampara’ System. This Court had already held in his favour that he is the true successor of Mahant Das and therefore there is no dispute in respect of the locus of the petitioner in filing this present petition. (iii) After notice in the writ petition, respondents/State filed the reply reiterating that the appellant/petitioner constructed the shops on an area of 172.12 sq. mtr. of Survey No. 2255 total area of 0.566 hectares. Therefore, the notice was issued under section 248 of the Code. (iii) After notice in the writ petition, respondents/State filed the reply reiterating that the appellant/petitioner constructed the shops on an area of 172.12 sq. mtr. of Survey No. 2255 total area of 0.566 hectares. Therefore, the notice was issued under section 248 of the Code. The SDO PWD has been delegated with the power of Tahsildar vide gazette notification published on 26-5-1975. After conducting the survey, the aforesaid encroachment has been found proved and accordingly, the shops have been demolished. However, along with the return, the respondents did not file any document to substantiate that the proceedings which were initiated under section 248 of the Code were concluded after surveying in the presence of the appellant/petitioner. Along with the return, the respondents filed a final order dt. 16-7-2010 passing the final order of eviction along with which a fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed. (iv) Vide order dt. 23-8-2022, Writ Court dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the final order dt. 16-7-2010 and deity is the owner of Survey No. 2613 and the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition before this Court. However, liberty has been granted to the deity to challenge the final order dt. 16-7-2010 through its next friend. (v) Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1120/2022. Vide a non-speaking order dated 22-9-2022, the Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No. 5374/2023. Vide order dt. 15-4-2024, the SLP was allowed and the writ appeal was directed to be decided on merits in accordance with law. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 4. The core issue in both these appeals is whether the action of the respondents in demolishing the shops without following due process of law is justified or not. 5. The record of the case reveals that the Additional Tahsildar/SDO PWD Datia issued a show cause notice to Mohandas Mahant alleging illegal construction on area 172.12 sq. mtr. (shops) on survey No. 2255 and calling upon him to appear before him on 16-7-2010. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations about the construction of shops on survey No. 2255. The record of the case reveals that the Additional Tahsildar/SDO PWD Datia issued a show cause notice to Mohandas Mahant alleging illegal construction on area 172.12 sq. mtr. (shops) on survey No. 2255 and calling upon him to appear before him on 16-7-2010. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegations about the construction of shops on survey No. 2255. The petitioner immediately approached the writ Court by way of Writ Petition No. 4120/2010. Learned Writ Court vide order dt. 21-7-2010 restrained the respondents to demolish 13 shops constructed on the northern side of the road reaching towards Bus Stand Datia. Mahant Mohandas was served with another notice dated 23-11-2010 calling upon him to stop construction. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice on 23-11-2010 by submitting that the Writ Court has already granted the interim protection in W.P. No. 4120/2010. According to the petitioner, a copy of the order was delivered to the respondents on 28-7-2010 and despite that, on 15-9-2010, the respondents demolished the construction of an area of 80 x 5 feet towards the western side of the temple facing Pitambara Peeth road without notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, again on 1-12-2010 demolished construction of shops on survey No. 2613 area 80 x 10 feet. Again, the petitioner approached the writ Court by way of filing W.P. No. 7667/2010. Vide order dt. 20-1-2011, Writ Court restrained the respondents from further demolition and they were directed to maintain the status quo in the matter of demolition. In W.P. No. 4120/2010, the respondents filed a reply along with a copy of the final order dt. 16-7-2010 and it is contended in the reply that the petitioner is burdened with the obligation to prove that the construction lies within the area of survey No. 2613 as the Survey No. 2255 belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh. 6. The respondents are correct in saying that the burden is on the petitioner to establish that constructions are made within the area of survey No. 2613 but for that, no opportunity for hearing was given to the petitioner to establish this fact. Again in para 20 of the return, the respondents stated that after the verification on the spot, it was found that the petitioner had made illegal construction/structure within the area of survey No. 2255 extending up to 172.12 sq. mt. Again in para 20 of the return, the respondents stated that after the verification on the spot, it was found that the petitioner had made illegal construction/structure within the area of survey No. 2255 extending up to 172.12 sq. mt. in respect of which notice under section 248 was issued to him. But no such document was filed by the respondents along with the return to substantiate the fact that spot verification was carried out in the presence of the petitioner. No order sheet has been filed to establish that the final order dated 16-7-2010 was passed after giving adequate opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the very show cause notice, in which the stay has been granted to the petitioner in both the writ petitions, therefore, the respondents ought not to have passed the final order and even if it is passed that is non-est in the eye of law and the petitioner was not required to challenge the same by way of amendment in the petition. Therefore, the writ Court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not challenge the order by way of appeal. The writ petitions are very much maintainable when the impugned orders were passed by the administrative authority or quasi-judicial authority in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, as discussed above the final order dt. 16-7-2010 was passed by respondent No. 6 without giving the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any survey or spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, this final order dated 16-7-2010 is unsustainable in law and void ab initio. 7. The Writ Court has also dismissed the writ petition on the ground of locus. The said objection was never taken by the respondents in the reply. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to explain his locus. Even otherwise, this Court vide order dt. 20-8-2009 passed in W.P. No. 310/2004, Mohan Das vs. Mahadev Prasad and others had already held that the petitioner is the successor of Mahant Amardas. The operative part of the order is as under :— “7. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to explain his locus. Even otherwise, this Court vide order dt. 20-8-2009 passed in W.P. No. 310/2004, Mohan Das vs. Mahadev Prasad and others had already held that the petitioner is the successor of Mahant Amardas. The operative part of the order is as under :— “7. In the present case, the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust dated 30-9-1975 Annexure P/8 reflects that a temple and the properties attached to the temple came into existence in Samvat 1510 and a successor was elected as per “Guru Parampara”, the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust further reflects that Mahant Bhajniramdas was the owner and Mahant of the temple from Samvat 1510 to 1660, Mahant Mohandas was owner and Mahant of the temple from Samvat 1660 to 1730, Mahant Sarjudas was owner and Mahant of the temple from Samvat 1730 to 1793, Mahant Gopaldas was owner and Mahant of the temple from Samvat 1793 to 1851, Mahant Balikdas was owner and Mahant of the temple from Samvat 1851 to 1906, Mahant Narsingdar was owner and Mahant of the Public Trust that since Samvat 1996 he was looking after entire property and he is the exclusive owner of the property in question. Learned Registrar, as per the provisions of Trust Act, 1951 has passed an order dated 30-9-1975 holding that the property in question is not a public property and under the Guru Parampara it is the property of Mahant Amardas. In the year 1989 again the matter on account of some notice issued by the Registrar, Public Trust, has travelled before the Registrar, Public Trust and on 20th March, 1989 (P/9), a detailed speaking order was passed by the Registrar, Public Trust wherein it was again it was held that the property in question is not a property belonging to any public Trust and Mahant Mohandas has been appointed as Mahant under the “Guru Parampara” and therefore, it is the property of Mahant Mohandas, thus two aforesaid orders dated 30-09-1975 and 20-3-1989 were not challenged by anyone before any forum and therefore they have attained finality. No revenue record establishing that the State of M. P. or the State of Vindhya Pradesh was the owner of the property in question, has been produced before this Court or before the Board of Revenue or before any other authorities who have dealt with the matter reflecting the government or any private individual to be the owner of the property of the temple. On the contrary it was Mahant Amardas who was held to be exclusive owner and Mahant of the temple property in question and after his death Mahant Mohandas has been elected under the “Guru Parampara” to be Mahant and owner of the property in question. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the fact remains that he respondent No. 1 was in litigation in respect of the temple property and a suit for eviction was filed against the respondent No. 1. The same was ultimately decreed against the respondent No. 1, the same has also attained finality. The respondent No. 1 has also been evicted on 28th January, 2004. The contention of the respondent No. 1 is that he was entitled to be appointed as Mahant on the basis of will executed by Amardas on 19-9-1985 is also of no help to respondent No. 1, as the aforesaid will was cancelled by Mahant Amardas during his lifetime on 19-2-1988 and therefore, the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior was justified in passing the order holding that Mohandas is the Mahant appointed after the death of Mahant Amardas in respect of temple property and therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 13-1-2004 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is hereby set aside.” Therefore, the petitioner has rightly filed a petition on behalf of the temple to protect the property of the temple. Had the objection been taken the petitioner could have added deity as a co-petitioner in this petition. After ten years of pendency of the writ petition, the writ Court has wrongly dismissed the petition on this technical ground. 8. At this stage, the recent photographs show that after the demolition of the shop the road was constructed and beautification was done by way of the plantation. The fact remains that the shops were illegally demolished by the respondents as discussed above. 8. At this stage, the recent photographs show that after the demolition of the shop the road was constructed and beautification was done by way of the plantation. The fact remains that the shops were illegally demolished by the respondents as discussed above. Learned senior counsel has relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raju Sharma vs. State of M.P., 2014 Revenue Nirnay 451, in which in similar facts and circumstances, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000 was awarded in favour of the petitioner in regard to the illegal demolition of the boundary wall. The liberty was granted to file a suit or other proceeding for compensation or recovery of possession of the land, over which the respondents have constructed the road. 9. Since now the shops have been demolished illegally, as held above, therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac) from the State/respondents. The respondents are directed to survey both the lands by the competent authority under the provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and if it is found that the land belonging to the petitioner had been taken for construction of the road widening, then an adequate amount of compensation be paid to the petitioner. The petitioners or the persons in possession of the shop as tenants or licences shall be at liberty to claim compensation from the respondents for the loss caused to them because of illegal demolition. 10. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are allowed in the above terms. The impugned orders passed in Writ Petitions No. 7667/2010 and 4120/2010 are set aside.