Madhya Pradesh High Court
Agyaram vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
WRIT APPEAL NO.3323/2025
AGYARAM AND OTHERS
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri T.C. Narwariya - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
{Delivered on 9thJanuary, 2026} Per: Justice Anand Pathak,
1. The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is filed being crestfallen by the order dated 21 st October, 2024 passed in Writ Petition No.32432/2024 by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition preferred by respondent No.4 was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to move appropriate application under 250 (8) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as MPLRC) before the SDO, Bhind and the same shall be considered by the SDO Bhind in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. Appellants are aggrieved by the said direction.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case as projected by the petitioners (hereinafter referred as "appellants") are that in earlier around Samvat 2020-2023 (1963-66), land bearing survey no.39/2 2 admeasuring 06 bighas was of ownership and possession of one Ramcharan S/o Peete. His name was recorded in revenue record as owner and possessor of the said land. Father of appellants namely Phool Singh alongwith one Jagannath purchased said piece of land vide sale deed dated 16/10/1965 and his name was recorded as Bhumiswami in the revenue record till 1992-93. Meanwhile, land settlement was carried out and survey No.39/2 was re-numbered as survey no.367. After death of Phoolsingh, appellants were having the right, title and possession over the said piece of land being his legal heirs.
3. It further appears that one Jaswant Singh moved an application before SDO Bhind/ respondent No.3 purportedly under Section 89 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and prayed for correction of error crept into settlement proceeding. According to said Jaswant Singh, his land was taken by present appellants. After considering the application and report obtained from the Tahsildar in which Tahsildar vide inquiry report dated 06/07/2012 found contentions of said Jaswant correct, thus, SDO, Bhind passed the order dated 18/07/2012 and direction was given to the Tahsildar to correct the revenue record accordingly. Now survey no.367 admeasuring 1.250 hectare was reduced to 0.92 hectare and said amendment was carried out in Aks (अक ) also.
4. It further appears that said Jaswant executed sale deed in favour of Mohit Narayan/ respondent No.4 herein vide sale deed dated 09/12/2020. On an application filed by respondent No.4, demarcation proceedings were carried out. Meanwhile, challenging the order dated 18/07/2012 passed by the SDO Bhind, present appellants preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, District-Bhind 3 but appellants did not appear there for long duration, therefore, Additional Collector passed the order dated 11/08/2017 on the basis of pleadings and documents available on record and appeal was rejected. Thereafter, appellants preferred Second Appeal before the Commissioner Chambal Division belatedly on 22/10/2020 and as submitted by the appellants in their pleadings as per counsel for the appellants during course of arguments, said second appeal is still pending consideration.
5. Meanwhile, respondent No.4 moved an application under Section 250 of MPLRC before the Tahsildar for removal of appellants from possession of suit land and Tahsildar Bhind vide order dated 19/07/2024 (Annexure A/13) allowed the application and directed the R.I and Patwari to dispossess the appellants from part of survey no.367/2 admeasuring 0.42 hectare. Against this order, appellants preferred an appeal before the SDO, Revenue but vide order dated 20/12/2024 (Annexure A/14), said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, second appeal is preferred by the appellants and according to appellants, said appeal is pending before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior.
6. It further appears that when no affirmative steps were taken by the revenue authorities then respondent No.4 preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P. No.32432/2024 and sought direction. The learned Writ Court vide impugned order dated 21 st October, 2024 issued direction to the SDO, Bhind for consideration of application under Section 250(8) of the MPLRC. moved at the instance of petitioner (respondent No.4 herein). Against the said direction, appellants are before this Court.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that they 4 were not given opportunity of hearing and direction has been passed, same is contrary and violation of principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that second appeal is pending before the Commissioner Chambal Division, Gwalior regarding correction of revenue record as per the land settlement. Therefore, no occasion arises for such direction by the Writ Court. It is further submitted that appellants are the owners and possessors of the suit land and therefore, consideration of application for dispossession is illegal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and submits that revenue record were corrected in accordance with law after due inquiry. Part of the land is purchased by respondent No.4, therefore, he is owner of survey nos. 367 as well as 367/2 and entitled to get possession of the said piece of land. Since appellants are causing disruption and holding the land, therefore, direction is required to further the cause of justice.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also opposed the prayer and submits that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit land. After Bandobast (बदबस ), his predecessor, Jaswant Singh got the said piece of land and therefore, respondent No.4 is the legitimate owner of the property which belong to Jaswant Singh. Appellants are trying to grab the land adjoining to their land, therefore, they are pursuing litigations before different authorities, however, they are not serious about litigation, they just want to harass respondent No.4. It is further submitted that appellants are in illegal possession of the land belonging to respondent No.4, therefore, application under Section 250 of MPLRC was earlier preferred and got allowed still respondent No.4 are not getting fruits of proceedings.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 5 appended thereto.
11. This is a case where appellants are taking exception to the order passed by the learned Writ Court whereby direction has been given to the SDO, Bhind to consider the application under Section 250 of MPLRC to be filed by respondent No.4. Perusal of the orders passed by the revenue authorities from time to time and being challenged by the appellants in different fora indicates that respondent No.4 found to be legitimate owner of part of survey no.367 and 367/2 as per the sale deed dated 09/12/2020. Proceedings regarding settlement were suffered by the appellants before different authorities and now as submitted by counsel for the appellants, second appeal is pending before the Commissioner Chambal Division. However, different proceedings indicate that appellants were reluctant litigants. Before, first appellate Court (Additional Collector), they did not appear for long therefore, on the basis of documents filed and arguments advanced by counsel for respondent No.4, order dated 11/08/2017 (Annexure A/9) was passed.
12. This order was challenged by the appellants after more than 03 years, which itself indicates that appellants are trying to somehow engage respondent No.4 in litigation and save themselves from dispossession. Even otherwise in case of proceedings under Section 250 of MPLRC, Tahsildar passed an order dated 19/07/2024 (Annexure A/13) and imposed fine of Rs.500/- upon appellants and directed appellants to dispossess from the suit land but still they did not do so instead they preferred appeal before the SDO, Bhind, but the same got dismissed. Thereafter, appellants preferred second appeal before the Commissioner Chambal Division, which according to them is still pending consideration. It means appellants have not 6 complied the order passed by the Revenue authorities regarding dispossession. Infact, Section 250 of MPLRC elaborately discussed the mechanism regarding restitution of dispossession of land owner.
13. Even as per Section 250(3)(4) of MPLRC, the revenue authorities has the authority to pass the interim order against the person occupying the land to hand over its possession to Bhumiswami. Spirit of Section 250 of MPLRC is that no Bhumiswami should be denied his legitimate possession and if any miscreants/ encroacher maintained possession illegally then he should be dispossessed without any delay and without much excuse. Therefore, revenue authorities so far have rightly considered the issue and pass the orders from time to time.
14. The learned Writ Court given direction to respondent No.4 to move an appropriate application under Section 250 of MPLRC before the SDO, Bhind and direction was given to SDO, Bhind to proceed on application in accordance with law. Nothing illegal or arbitrariness has been found in the impugned order. In fact, this appeal is misconceived and is an attempt on behalf of appellants to thwart the proceeding of dispossession against them. Respondent No.4 has all rights to move appropriate application under Section 250 of MPLRC and to get encroachers or illegal possessor dispossessed from his legitimate property.
15. Resultantly, impugned order dated 21st October, 2024 is sustained and stands affirmed, however, appeal being misconceived is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) to be paid by the appellants within two months to respondent No.4 in the account of Juvenile Justice Fund having Saving Bank Account No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura, Bhopal, IFSC Code MAHB0001988 (a statutory fund created for the 7 welfare of juveniles) within one month from today, failing which same shall be released by the revenue authorities as arrears of land revenue.
16. The appeal is dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
vc JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI
VARSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=df59fbf0f5c7485addc8affe3edf20e67d11d7f910 45d81139f6792fbd4ae91f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7065094, CHATURVEDI postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=652fe82bc5cae8153a1e34c3b8efc095f5a0 d144b089415f31342d1c8e2d3139, cn=VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2026.01.09 18:59:16 +05'30'