Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Kundan Sarkar Hanuman Mandir Sewa ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2456
1 MP-7560-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 7560 of 2025
SHRI KUNDAN SARKAR HANUMAN MANDIR SEWA SAMITI SHRI
HANUMAN MANDIR STITH RAI ROAD NAI TEHIL KE PASS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar - learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nakul
Khedkar- learned Counsel for caveator.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal- Government Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1
and 2.
ORDER
Present misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 15-12-2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as "the first appellate Court") in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30-07-2025 passed by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolaras, District Shivpuri (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Regular Civil Suit No. 42-A of 2024 has been dismissed.
2. A few facts giving rise to present petition, as narrated therein, are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Shri Kundan Sarkar Hanuman Mandir Seva Samiti, is a registered Trust that manages the Kundan Sarkar Hanuman Mandir situated at Rai Road, New Tehsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri. The Trust was registered under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 22-Jan-26 10:46:14 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2456 2 MP-7560-2025 provisions of the Public Trust Act, 1951 on 20.12.2022. The temple complex includes multiple structures such as a Hanuman Temple, Mahadev Temple, Samadhi Sthal, and a Lord Ram Temple under construction. It was pleaded by the petitioner-plaintiff that the land in dispute, comprising Survey Nos. 7 and 10, was purchased by Gurudev Ghanshyam Das alias Siyaram Baba through a registered sale deed on 19.04.1971. The land (approximately 5 bigha 1 biswa) is used for religious purposes, including the construction of rooms for priests and devotees, as well as storing puja materials. Further, Survey Nos. 16, 17, and 18, which are Government lands, were granted to Gurudev Ghanshyam Das under Section 239 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) on 09.04.1979 for planting fruit trees, which were duly planted by him. After the demise of Gurudev Ghanshyam Das on 03.08.2022, the petitioner Trust was granted the authority to take over the management of the temple and its associated properties, including the disputed land. The dispute arose when the Chief Municipal Officer on behalf of the Municipal Council, Kolaras, filed an application for constructing a park on the Government land in Survey Nos. 16, 17, and 18. The District Collector, Shivpuri, granted permission for the park construction on 17.01.2023. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that the allotment of land for park construction was improper as the land had been granted to Gurudev Ghanshyam Das for tree plantation and is under the Trust's control. An application submitted by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was partially accepted, with a direction that defendant No. 3 should not occupy the disputed land in Survey Nos. 7 and 10 measuring 5 bigha 1 biswa in any manner and not to interfere with, vandalize, or cause any harm to the property or any person. The defendant was not shown to have any legal possession of Survey Nos. 16, 17, and 18. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous civil appeal before the Principal District Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 22-Jan-26 10:46:14 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2456 3 MP-7560-2025 Judge, Shivpuri, i.e., Misc. Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025, which was also dismissed on 15.12.2025. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by both the trial Court and the appellate Court is ex-facie illegal. It is argued that both Courts failed to consider the revenue entries indicating the possession of the petitioner's predecessor, and upon the death of Gurudev Ghanshyam Das, the property vested in the Trust. The petitioner has established a prima facie case, and it is settled law that the Courts must protect the status quo during the pendency of litigation, especially when the petitioner has shown a prima facie case in its favor. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass , reported in 2004 (8) SCC 488, which affirms the principle that during the pendency of litigation, Courts must protect the status quo unless exceptional circumstances exist.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the land in Survey Nos. 16, 17, and 18 remains Government land, and the permission granted to Gurudev Ghanshyam Das under Section 239 of the MPLRC for planting trees does not confer ownership or title to the petitioner. It is argued that since Gurudev Ghanshyam Das died without legal heirs, the land reverted to the Government, and the petitioner Trust cannot claim title to it. The Municipal Council has the legal authority to use the land for public purposes, including the construction of a park. The respondents place reliance on the unreported judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Samsuddin and Others vs. Mohd. Habib and Another , decided on 14th May 2024 in Second Appeal No. 1191 of 2004, which upheld the findings recorded by the lower courts and found no misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this misc. petition.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 22-Jan-26 10:46:14 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2456 4 MP-7560-2025
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Provisions of Section 239 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) are as follows: Rule 2(2) under Section 239 of MPLRC allows for the planting of fruit-bearing trees such as mango, imli, jamun, and mahua on unoccupied Government land. Section 239(6) states that if any land on which tree plantation has been permitted is required for public purposes, it may be repurposed by the order of the Collector. This includes the allocation of the land for uses such as park construction, which is the situation in the present case. Section 239(6), as amended by the MPLRC Amendment Act of 2018 (which came into force on 25th of September, 2018) provides that the land granted for tree plantation can be repurposed for public use, and the rights of the person to whom the land was granted, such as the petitioner Trust, are not absolute.
7. Upon perusal of the records, it is found that the petitioner has established a prima facie case regarding ownership and possession of Survey Nos. 7 and 10, which were lawfully purchased by Gurudev Ghanshyam Das. The land has been used for temple purposes, and the trial Court's decision to grant an injunction concerning these lands is upheld. However, with respect to Survey Nos.16, 17, and 18, the permission granted to Gurudev Ghanshyam Das for planting trees does not confer any ownership over Government land to the petitioner Trust. These lands, granted for tree plantation under Section 239 of MPLRC, have been withdrawn by the State Government under Section 239(6) and allotted to the Municipal Council for the development of a park. No objection was raised by the petitioner before the Collector regarding the allocation of Survey Nos. 16 and 17 for park construction. Therefore, the petitioner has no title to seek an injunction against the respondents concerning Survey Nos. 16 and 17. However, with respect to Survey No. 18, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 22-Jan-26 10:46:14 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2456 5 MP-7560-2025 which has not yet been allocated by the State to the Municipal Council, and since this survey number was granted for the purpose of planting trees, which has not been disturbed by the State Government, the injunction granted by the learned trial Court is modified. Plaintiff- petitioner is granted an injunction regarding Survey No.18 until the final disposal of the suit.
8. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is disposed of with an observation that the findings of learned trial Court and first appellate Court regarding Survey Nos.16 and 17 are affirmed. The learned trial Court's order regarding Survey No.18 is modified by granting an injunction in favour of petitioner- plaintiff until the final disposal of suit pending before it.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 22-Jan-26 10:46:14 AM