M/S Shri Ram Builders vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

M/S Shri Ram Builders vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026

2. The present appeals assail the order dated 24.07.2025 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) in Writ Appeal Nos. 1416 and 1432 of 2025 granting “leave to appeal” to the interveners in the writ petition permitting them to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.04.2025 passed in W.P. No. 7617 of 2021.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The Appellant, M/s. Shriram Builders, purchased the land at survey nos. 66/2(k), 73/4/2, 74, 75/3, 83/2 and 84/2 situated at Village Khajrana, District Indore (hereinafter, ‘subject Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA land’) from M/s. Nyay Vibhag Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Date: 2026.02.23 18:16:57 IST Reason: Maryadit (hereinafter ‘the Society’) vide a registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.2003.

4. Prior to this purchase, the Society obtained the necessary permission from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indore, on 28.02.2003 to sell the subject land which was purchased subject to certain conditions as specified in the permission letter. The sale was necessitated because of inclusion of such land in development scheme of Indore Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘IDA’) and the members of the society started to demand refund of the amount deposited by them. The society was not in a position to refund the amount to the allottee members. In this light, permission to sell the subject land to the appellant was granted. Consequently, the name of the appellant was mutated in the revenue records.

Proceedings of T & C Department

5. The subject land was included in Scheme No. 132 framed by IDA and was sought to be acquired. For this purpose, IDA issued a notification dated 18.08.2006 as per Section 50(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The said notification was challenged before the High Court in W.P. No. 14605 of 2006 which came to be allowed vide order dated 14.08.2007, and affirmed by the full bench in Writ Appeal No. 1455 of 2007 vide order dated 24.04.2009. Against the order of the full bench, the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14600 of 2 2009 and 17035 of 2009 were filed which were dismissed as infructuous on account of a new scheme having being notified.

6. Later, the subject land was again included in Scheme No. 171 vide notification dated 19.06.2009 of the IDA. This inclusion was challenged by appellant by filing the revision no. 25/2014-15 under Section 51 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The revisional authority vide order dated 08.04.2015 issued the direction to exclude the subject land from the Scheme No. 171. Further, vide order dated 29.08.2016 passed by State Government, IDA was directed to grant permission to appellant for development of the land. Even after such directions, compliance was not made by the IDA, hence, W.P. No. 6829 of 2019 was filed by the appellant against inaction of the IDA in not issuing the NOC for private development in favour of appellant. The High Court allowed W.P. No. 6829 of 2019 directing the IDA to issue NOC in favour of appellant. As a sequel to above factual backdrop, IDA issued NOC in favour of the appellant for private development in regard to the subject land on 20.09.2019.

Removal of Encroachment Proceedings

7. In the interregnum, the appellant submitted an application under Section 129 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar, Indore seeking to demarcate the boundaries of the 3 subject land. On 15.12.2016 the demarcations proceedings were carried out and it came to the notice of the appellant that some portion of the subject land was encroached upon by certain unauthorized persons.

8. Appellant filed Revenue Case No. 04/A-70/2017-18 before Tehsildar, Indore under Section 250 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 for removal of encroachment and restoration of possession of the said encroached land. By order dated 25.06.2018, the tehsildar passed following directions – “On the basis of the above discussion, since the applicant has proved its case on the basis of the evidence and the occupation of the non-applicants has been found to be unauthorized, this application under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code submitted by the applicant is accepted. Through the application, orders are given to remove the unauthorized encroachment as shown in the demarcation of the applicant’s ownership on survey number 66/2(a) and give the direct possession of the land owned by the applicant to the applicant. A letter be issued to the concerned Patwari and Revenue Inspector to visit the spot and ensure the process of handing over the final possession of the land to the applicant.

The parties should be informed. After the case is filed there should be a record.

Order date today i.e. 25/06/2018 passed and pronounced.”

9. The order dated 25.06.2018 came to be affirmed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Indore vide order dated 04.04.2019 and Additional Commissioner, Indore vide order dated 08.08.2019. Aggrieved, one set of encroachers (62 in number) approached the High Court and filed Misc. Petition No. 5156 of 2019 which came 4 to be dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2020. Vide order dated 16.12.2020 in W.A. No. 1233/2020, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order dated 01.10.2020. As such the findings with respect to private respondents being encroachers attained finality in those proceedings.

10. Nonetheless, since the authorities were not taking any action pursuant to the Division Bench order date 16.12.2020, the appellant filed a contempt petition i.e., CONC. No. 1847 of 2020, which came to be dismissed on 15.02.2021 on the ground that the tehsildar had already initiated the appropriate proceeding for complying the order dated 01.10.2020.

Cancellation of Sale Permission dated 28.02.2003

11. The Joint Commissioner & Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indore, passed an order dated 22.03.2021 (hereinafter, ‘Revocation Order’) revoking the original permission/approval for sale of subject land dated 28.02.2003. This revocation was premised on the ground that the conditions on which the approval for sale of the subject land was given, were not being followed. The appellant challenged this revocation in Writ Petition No. 7617 of 2021 praying to quash the revocation order. 2nd Round of Removal of Encroachment Proceedings 5

12. In the meanwhile, since the encroachments were still not removed by the authorities, the appellant filed a fresh Writ Petition being W.P. No. 5857 of 2021 praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the authorities for immediately removing the encroachments situated in the subject land and for restoring the possession. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the W.P. No. 5857 of 2021 on the ground that Cooperative Department had revoked the permission under which the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Judge, appellant preferred W.A. No. 1224 of 2023. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.10.2023 and observed as follows – “27. We are unable to approve the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Perusal of the order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in M.P. No.5156/2019 reveals that the petitioners therein had specifically raised an objection regarding the entitlement of a bhumiswami of a residential land situated, in an urban area for restoration of possession under the provisions of Section 250 MPLRC.

28. The aforesaid objection was considered and decided in favour of the appellant by an order dated 01.10.2020 and the same has been upheld by the Division Bench by the order dated 16.12.2020. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order that the appellant was disentitled for restoration of possession of its land by invoking the provisions of Section 250 MPLRC is erroneous and unsustainable.

29. The learned Single Judge was also not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of pendency of the other petitions viz. W.P. No. 16802/2020, W.P. No. 7617/2021 and W.P. No. 11059/2021.

30. The appellant has filed W.P. No. 7617/2021 before this court challenging the order dated 22.03.2021 issued by the cooperative department thereby revoking the permission for sale granted on 28.02.2003. It is noteworthy in pursuance of the permission granted on 28.02.2003, sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant way back in the year 2003, while the aforesaid permission for sale has been revoked after a long lapse of 18 years without any notice to the appellant.

31. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of the respondents that the title of the appellant has come under a cloud on account of the order dated 22.03.2021, particularly in view of the fact that the operation of the aforesaid order has been stayed by this Court.

…………

37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is set-aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is ordered to be allowed. The respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 are directed to remove the encroachments with the help of respondent No. 3 and to reinstate the appellant in vacant possession of the land bearing survey no. 66/2(k) area 0.720 hectare of village Khajrana in terms of the orders dated 01.10.2020 and 16.12.2020 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

13. The above order in W.A. No. 1224 of 2023 came to be impugned before this court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 8919/2024 by State and in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22314/2024 by some of the encroachers.

14. This court, vide order dated 18.06.2024, dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.22314/2024 while observing as follows –

4. M/s Shree Ram Builders claimed to be the owners of the said land. It filed Writ Petition No.5857 of 2021 before the High Court seeking direction for removal of encroachment. Present petitioners were not party to that petition either before the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court. After the Writ Appeal No. 1224 of 2023 7 was allowed on 25.10.2023 by the Division Bench of the High Court, the present petitioners filed Review Petition No.191 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2024.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that the petitioners, who had already lost the litigation holding them to be encroachers on the land in- question, can be granted permission to file the present Special Leave Petition raising an issue as to who should get possession of the land after encroachments are removed.

6. The application seeking permission, to file the Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

7. The Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 22314 of 2024) and other pending applications will be treated as dismissed.

15. On the other hand, this Court issued notice in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 8919/2024 (filed by the State) vide order dated 05.04.2024 and also requested the High Court to expedite the hearing in W.P. No. 7617/2021. However, on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 06.08.2024, this Court came to pass the order reproduced as thus – Intervention Application No. 170086/2624 in SLP(C) No.8428/2024 is allowed.

We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties at length. As noted by us in our earlier order, the issue pertaining to the revocation of the permission for sale, is pending consideration before the High Court in Writ Petition No.7617/2021. It has also been informed that numerous applications for impleadment are being filed by the inhabitants/encroachers and various third parties. We request the High Court not to entertain any such application in future. This is for the simple reason that the applicants already before the Court and those who want to file fresh applications are expected to support the order which is under challenge before the High Court. Needless to state that independent rights are not to be agitated in the pending proceeding.

Accordingly, we deem it fit to request the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition expeditiously, as numerous rounds of litigation have gone by already.

In such view of the matter we request, the High Court to make an endeavour to conclude the hearing in the 8 pending Writ Petition within a period of three months from today.

Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained by the concerned parties.

We also make it clear that the High Court is not expected to proceed with the pending contempt proceedings in view of the orders aforesaid.

Post the present Special Leave Petitions for hearing after disposal of the pending Writ Petition by the High Court. Later, vide order dated 13.10.2025, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 8919/2024 by noting that another SLP arising out of the same impugned order has been dismissed.

16. Consequently, the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 21.04.2025, allowed the W.P. No. 7617 of 2021 and quashed the revocation order, thereby restoring the validity of the 2003 permission and the subsequent sale. Learned Single Judge was of the view that all the conditions as specified in permission were complied with and no evidence has been produced to prove violation of any of such conditions. Moreover, revocation of permission after such a long time was wholly unjustifiable, that too when such decision is taken in violation of principles of natural justice, purportedly based on some suo motu review that is not found in the statutory scheme of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is to be noted that various intervention applications were never allowed by the High Court and in fact, in para 10, the learned Single Judge expressly makes 9 it clear that in light of the order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 8919/2024, the intervention applications have been considered only to the extent they intend to support the revocation order.

17. Aggrieved, the private respondents herein i.e., the individuals previously identified as encroachers and who were interveners before the Single Judge, sought to challenge the Single Judge's order by filing Writ Appeal Nos. 1416 and 1432 of 2025 along with applications seeking “leave to appeal” as persons aggrieved. The Division Bench, vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2025, granted them such leave. The High Court reasoned that since the Single Judge’s order validated the Appellant's title, and since the private respondents were in possession, albeit found unauthorized, they were "prejudicially affected" and thus qualified as “persons aggrieved”.

18. Aggrieved by order of the High Court granting the private respondents leave to appeal, the present appeals have been filed. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

19. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the central issue that falls for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the private respondents and the appellants in Writ 10 Appeals before the high Court ought to be granted a ‘leave to appeal’?

20. As noted above, vide order dated 06.08.2024 in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 8919 of 2024, this court in express terms had requested the High Court not to entertain any applications by inhabitant/encroacher/third-party seeking impleadment in the pending WP No. 7617/2021 and no independent rights were to be agitated in the pending proceedings. It was also observed that such applicant were only expected to support the revocation order that was under challenge.

21. In light of the above order, the Single Judge, noted in paras 10 and 15 of order dated 21.04.2025 as follows –

10. In the petition as many as six applications have been preferred for intervening in the petition and reply to all the applications has been filed by the petitioner. However, at the outset, it may be mentioned that by order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8427 of 2024 (State of M.P. and Others versus M/s. Sriram Builders and Another) the Apex Court has clarified that the interveners are expected to support the order which is under challenge before this Court and that their independent rights are not to be agitated in the pending proceeding. Thus, the applications are being considered only to the extent the interveners intend to support the impugned order. All the counsel for the interveners have been heard at length in support of the impugned order.

………….

15. Learned counsel for the interveners in sum and substance have submitted that the disputed land sold by the Society to the petitioner is itself void ab initio and contrary to the Act, 1960. However, that is not the subject 11 matter of this petition and as per the direction of the Apex Court, the individual rights of the interveners have not to be considered. It has further been submitted that there was violation of the conditions of the permission granted to the Society which has hence rightly been cancelled by the impugned order. The permission which was granted was itself illegal being beyond the applicable legal provisions. In respect of the dispute as has been raised in this petition, a civil suit ought to be filed before the Civil Court which would be the appropriate remedy for the petitioner since various disputed questions of facts are involved. The dispute is primarily in respect of title to the disputed property. Other submissions have also been made by them for supporting the impugned order as made by respondents No.1 to 5. It is hence submitted that the impugned order is perfectly just and illegal which does not warrant any interference in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

22. In sequel, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the writ appeals along with applications seeking leave to appeal were preferred by the persons who were the interveners before the Single Judge. The Division Bench allowed the said applications on the premise that these persons were the ‘aggrieved persons’ as their civil suit claiming title over the subject land was pending.

23. In the said factual background, it is pertinent to note that once this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 had in categorical terms settled the position that the independent right of the intervenors were not to be agitated or examined in the present proceedings, in that eventuality, the Division Bench ought not have allowed the application seeking leave to appeal on one 12 pretext or another. The tenor of the said order of this Court leaves no room for any doubt that the intervenors could have only supported the revocation order but could not have asserted their own claim with respect to the subject land for a simple reason that same persons were declared as encroachers by the Division Bench judgement dated 16.12.2020 in WA No. 1233 of 2020 and those proceedings attained finality. Therefore, the grant of such leave to appeal, in disregard of the order of this Court dated 06.08.2024, is legally unsustainable. CONCLUSION

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred in granting them leave to appeal. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal Nos. 1416 and 1432 of 2025 is set aside. The Writ Appeals filed by the private respondents before the High Court stand dismissed as not maintainable.

25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

.…………….…………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI) ………………………..J. (A.S. CHANDURKAR) NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 27, 2026.

ITEM NO.47                COURT NO.2                SECTION IV-C

                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 31913-31914/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-07-2025 in WA No. 1416/2025 24-07-2025 in WA No. 1432/2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore] M/S SHRI RAM BUILDERS THR.

ITS PARTNER SNEHLATA KHANDELWAL Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s) (IA No. 291071/2025 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Date : 27-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Arjun Kanadi, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, A.A.G. Mr. Sarthak Raizada Ga, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Shreyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, Adv. Mr. P.N Saxena, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, AOR Ms. Pooja, Adv.

Mr. Vishwa Dev Sarraf, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1) Leave granted.

2) The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

           (NIDHI AHUJA)                   (NAND KISHOR)
          DEPUTY REGISTRAR               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                  [Signed order is placed on the file.]


                                  14

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders