[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pooran Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33051
1 WP-48149-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 15 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 48149 of 2025
POORAN SINGH RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
Advocate General/State.
ORDER
1.Heard on the question of admission.
2.This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner claiming following reliefs :-
"i- That respondent may kindly be directed not to
dispossess petitioner from the shop in question till
conclusion of the proceedings u/s 248 in the interest of
justice.
ii-That the respondent may kindly be directed to adhere
to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court In Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of structures W.P
Civil No 295 of 2022.
iii-That cost of the petition may also be awarded to the
petitioner.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly
be granted to the petitioner."
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in the
occupation of shop constructed in the Manoranjan Bhawan, village Kalamadh,
Tehsil Bairard, District Shivpuri situated at survey No. 872/4/3. The said shop has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33051
2 WP-48149-2025
been rented to the petitioner by one Shiv Narayan S/o Shri Chintulal Vyas. The
petitioner is operating his business in the said shop, but suddenly a notice dated
17/11/2025 (Annexure P/2) has been issued to him by the Tehsildar Bairard,
District Shivpuri under section 248 of MPLRC, 1959 calling upon the petitioner
show cause as to why proceedings under section 248 of MPLRC, 1959 be not
initiated against him as the land on which the shops are being run by the petitioner
is situated on Government land.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that reply to the show
cause notice dated 17/11/2025 was not being accepted by the Tehsildar, therefore,
prior to filing of the writ petition, reply to the show cause notice has been sent to
the Tehsildar through registered post and the postal receipt is placed on record.
Learned counsel apprehends that without deciding proceedings under section 248
of MPLRC, 1959, the respondents may demolish the shop of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court In Reference: Direction In The Matter Of Demolition Of The Structures
W.P. (Civil) No. 295/2022 reported in (2025) 5 SCC 1 submits that the procedure
as contemplated under para 94 of the aforesaid judgment is essentially required to
be followed and the petitioner has apprehension that the proceedings for
demolition of shop may be conducted against him, without following the
directions as contained therein. Accordingly, he submits that the prayer made in
the instant writ petition deserves to be granted.
5.On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on advance
instructions submits that the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the
proceedings instituted vide show cause notice issued under section 248 of
MPLRC, 1959 is itself not maintainable. It is for the petitioner to submit reply to
the said show cause notice and satisfy the authority as regards his entitlement to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33051
3 WP-48149-2025
continue with the possession on the Government land. He further submits that
alleged landlord of the petitioner namely Shiv Narayan had earlier filed a civil suit
against the State which was dismissed and thereafter in respect of the same
property, he has filed regular civil appeal bearing RCS No. 34/2025, which has
also been dismissed by the 5th District Judge, Shivpuri vide judgment dated
03/12/2025. Thus, he submits that so called landlord of the petitioner himself has
failed to establish his right over the Government land, the petitioner claiming to
be tenant of the said person cannot be permitted to continue illegal possession on
the Government land. Accordingly, he submits that no case for admission of the
writ petition is made out.
6.No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
7.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material
available on record.
8.The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether
the directions issued by the Apex Court In Reference: Direction In The Matter Of
Demolition Of The Structures W.P. (Civil) No. 295/2022 reported in (2025) 5
SCC 1 are applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case?
9.Perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court indicates that the
same pertains to the action of demolition undertaken by the State authorities
against the persons accused of certain offences and in those facts and
circumstances of the case, the Apex Court had laid down certain guidelines
providing for certain protection in respect of the property belonging to the accused
persons and the procedure to be followed while undertaking the exercise of
demolition of the properties of the accused persons.
10.In the considered opinion of this Court, the said judgment may have no
applicability in the given facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, action is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33051
4 WP-48149-2025
sought to be taken in terms of section 248 of MPLRC, 1959 for eviction of
unauthorized and illegal occupant on the Government land.
11.That part, it has been fairly well settled by this Court that MPLRC, 1959
is a complete code in itself. In case, any adverse order is passed against the
petitioner under the proceedings instituted vide impugned notice under section
248 of MPLRC, 1959 then the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of
appeal / revision provided under the Act itself. It is not the case of the petitioner
that notice dated 17/11/2025 impugned in the instant writ petition is without
jurisdiction.
12.In view of the above consideration, interference in the instant writ
petition, at this stage, is declined.
13.It is open for the petitioner to submit his reply to the impugned show
cause notice before the competent authority in support of his claim. Petition stands
dismissed.
15.All pending interlocutory applications / order, if any, stand disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Durgekar
