Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrawan Tiwari vs The State Of M.P. on 11 July, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17814
1 WP-23563-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 23563 of 2025
SHRAWAN TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Awasthi - Advocate for the petitioner (through VC).
Shri Raghav Shrivastava appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction for restraining the respondents
from interfering with his possession over the disputed land and from taking
any coercive action against him.
02. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is the lawful owner of his land having purchased the same by way
of various registered sale deeds. He is attempting to fence his property but
the Officers of the Forest Department are interfering with his work and are
claiming 3.234 hectare to be belonging to the Forest Department. They have
raised a dispute as regards encroachment and also as regards boundary of the
land of the petitioner and forest land. The respondents do not have any right
over the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has already preferred
complaints before the respondents but no action thereupon has been taken.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17814
2 WP-23563-2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of
the Apex Court in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and
Another 1982 (2) SCC 134, Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of
India and Another 2019 (20) SCC 705 and Vishwa Vijay Bharti Vs. Fakhrul
Hassan and Others 1976 (3) SCC 642 and order of this Court dated
11.03.2025 passed in W.P. No.21948/2019 (Neeraj Vs. State of M.P. and
Others) and other connected petitions to contend that for claiming any right
over land of the petitioner, the respondents ought to resort to the remedy of a
civil suit.
03. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that since a
dispute as regards encroachment and boundary has been raised in the matter,
the same is not liable to be entertained and adjudicated upon in a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
04. From perusal of the facts as pleaded in the petition and the
documents annexed thereto, it is evident that there is a great deal of dispute
as regards boundaries of the land of the petitioner and that of the Forest
Department. Allegations as regards encroachment have been made by the
petitioner. The said allegations are factual disputes and would require factual
determination by recording of evidence of the parties which cannot be done
in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but can be
better done in a civil suit instituted before the competent Civil Court. Since
the petitioner has raised a dispute as regards threat to his possession and
encroachment being made by the respondents, it is for him to approach the
Civil Court and he cannot force the respondents to do the same hence the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17814
3 WP-23563-2025
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not help
him in any manner.
05. In view of various factual disputes as involved in the matter, I do
not deem it fit to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India which is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the
petitioner to avail the remedy as may be available to him under the law.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
