Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Soni vs Kusum Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd. Through ... on 31 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WA-551-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WA No. 551 of 2026
(SATISH SONI Vs KUSUM INFRA ESTATE PVT. LTD. THROUGH AMBADUTT S/O SHRI JAYDESH SHARMA
AND OTHERS )
Dated : 31-03-2026
Shri Sanjay Pathak - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.C.Bagadia, Senior Counsel with Shri Ramesh Kumar Saboo,
counsel for the respondent No.1.
Heard on I.A.No. 1875/2026.
The present intra court appeal is filed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Single Judge in writ petition NO. 47842/2025 whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Tahsil Bicholi Hapsi, Indore closing the application preferred by the writ petitioner under section 129 of MPLRC, has been set aside and learned Single Judge has directed the restoration of proceedings under section 129 of MPLRC. The Tahsildar has been directed to initiate and complete the proceedings under section 129 of MPLRC within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order in accordance with law by affording due opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties.
Counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was the party and he had filed reply but learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has not adverted to his contention. He further argued that Tahsildar had rightly closed the application under section 129 of MPLRC because the matter relating to Batankan of the said land was still pending before the appellate authority. He argued and has drawn our attention to Annx.A/17 which was Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA KOUSHAL Signing time: 31-Mar-26 5:53:13 PM 2 WA-551-2026 also filed along with reply to submit that respondent-writ petitioner had admitted in application under section 250 MPLRC that they are not in possession of the land. He further argued that learned Single has only referred section 129 MPLRC and not other provisions of the said Chapter itself which clearly shows that application under section 129 of MPLRC can only be filed by a party in a dispute. Since there was no dispute as the writ petitioner himself had admitted that he was not in possession of the land in question, therefore the order passed by the Tahsildar was legal and justified. The learned Single Judge erred while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the said order.
Counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid, issue notice to the respondents.
Since the respondents are represented, therefore no P.F. is required to be paid.
As an interim measure, it is directed that in pursuant to the order passed by the Single Judge, the Tahsildar will continue with the proceedings under section 129 of MPLRC, however he will not pass the final order without leave of the Court.
List for hearing in the week commencing 4.05.2026. C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 31-Mar-26
5:53:13 PM
3 WA-551-2026
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
KOUSHAL
Signing time: 31-Mar-26
5:53:13 PM