Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyalal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56768
1 WP-24004-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24004 of 2025
BHAIYALAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aman Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri R.S. Jaiswal - Senior Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam -
Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the order dated
13.05.2025 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No.2.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent
No.2,to afford the opportunity of hearing, determine proper
compensation amount by correctly inspecting the spot and verifying
the loss caused to the petitioner as per objection dated 26.05.2025
(Annexure P/8) filed by the petitioner.
(iii) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of
this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner
of the property in question and the respondent No.5 was granted a mining
lease for extraction of limestone over total area of 42.567 hectares of land
including the petitioner's land and his brothers. The petitioner refused to give
his share. Therefore, the respondent No.2 preferred an application under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56768
2 WP-24004-2025
Section 247(3)(4(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code Act,
1959 for entrance on the land by providing compensation to the petitioner
and others for mining purpose. Though petitioner's brothers have sold out
their share but the petitioner has refused to sale his share. The matter was
enquired into by Tahsildar who forwarded the enquiry report on 09.01.2025
before the SDO. The SDO (Revenue) has determined the compensation
amounting to Rs.5,40,288/- without inspecting the spot. The SDO has
recommended for permission of land entry over the disputed land.
Thereafter, the Collector passed the impugned order dated 13.05.2025
allowing the respondent No.5 for mining work over the land in question. The
petitioner raised objection and preferred several representations. As no heed
has been paid by the authorities, the present petition is filed.
3. Vide order dated 04.07.2025, while issuing notices to the respondents,
as a matter of interim relief, this Court has stayed the effect and operation of
the order impugned dated 13.05.2025.
4. On notice being issued, the respondent No.5 filed an application for
vacating the stay order placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Bihari Singh vs State of
M.P. reported in (2008) 4 MP LJ 255. He has brought to the notice of this
Court that a civil suit has been preferred by the petitioner being
RCSA/34/2025 on which notices have been issued on 07.03.2025 for
appearance on 16.04.2025. The plaint contains the same land as mentioned in
the writ petition. The aforesaid fact is suppressed from this Court. The
petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56768
3 WP-24004-2025
5. As a general rule, suppression of material facts or information
disqualifies the litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved
to deter the litigant from abusing the process of this Court by descenting it.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav vs
Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, reported in (2013) 11 SCC
531 has held as under :
"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for
adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a
litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making
to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the
order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough
disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and
circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it
has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v.
Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing
inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to
an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows:
"9. ... It is of utmost importance that in making material statements
and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be
taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or
misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the
confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and
misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the
present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked.
Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The
appellant will pay the costs of the respondent."
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14
SCC 38 the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a
litigant does not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled
to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from
any judicial forum. It was said -
"21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with
clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance
and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable
not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the
Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56768
4 WP-24004-2025
forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not
only entitled but is duty-bound to protect itself from unscrupulous
litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute
the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making
misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on
adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the
order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It
is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents
and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront
and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the
submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the court to
determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a
decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must
suffer the consequence thereof."
6. T h e Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Jayaram vs BDA,
reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has observed as follows :
"14. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check
multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and
more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders
through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either
by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the
pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement,
we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all
legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any
part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge.
In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or
court litigations were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so
in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in
accordance with law."
7. In yet another occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramrameshwari Devi vs Nirmala Devi, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249,
deprecating the dilatory tactics and the harassment of opposite party,
ultimately resulting in wastage of court's time and also unjust benefit to the
wrong doer under the existing system of administration of civil litigation
came down heavily to slap the exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs only).
8. In the present case, by suppressing this material information of filing a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56768
5 WP-24004-2025
civil suit in which notices were issued on 07.03.2025, the petitioner ought to
have mentioned the aforesaid fact in the body of the writ petition. Merely the
fact that he was not informed by the party will not be an excuse coupled with
the fact that document Annexure P/8, particularly para 7 and 8 thereof
indicating the said fact but despite being aware of the same, the petitioner
has not mentioned the same in the body of the writ petition and obtained
interim order on 04.07.2025 on the pretext that the respondents are forcefully
entering into the land of the petitioner and tried to carry out mining activities.
It is further brought to the notice of this Court by the respondent No.5 that
they have been granted mining lease on the property in question way back
on 10.04.2001 as reflected from Annexure R5/1 on which they have started
mining activities after getting the compensation ascertained from the
competent authority. The petitioner has not challenged the grant of mining
lease to the respondent No.5 till date. Under these circumstances, as the writ
petition is flooded with suppression of material information, no relief can be
extended to the petitioner.
9. At this stage, petitioner's counsel prays for withdrawal of this petition;
however, the fact remains that once the aspect of suppression of material
information is brought to the notice of the petitioner's counsel, it is only
thereafter he has made prayer for withdrawal of this writ petition. Under
these circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to permit the
petitioner to withdraw the writ petition simplicitor. At this juncture,
petitioner's counsel submits that he is a young lawyer and have just started
practice & having limited experience; therefore, he prays that the cost
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56768
6 WP-24004-2025
imposed may be reduced on the lower side. He assures this Court that he will
be cautious in future and will not commit such mistake again.
10. Considering the overall facts as well as the fact that he is a young
lawyer coupled with the assurance given before this Court, this Court deems
it appropriate to permit withdrawal of the writ petition subject to petitioner
depositing cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with the M.P.
High Court Bar Association (SB A/c No.519302010000549, IFS CODE:
UBIN0551937, Union Bank of India, State Bar Council High Court Branch,
Jabalpur) within a period of ten days from today. The compliance thereof be
placed before this Court for perusal in the week commencing 24.11.2025.
Interim order passed on 04.07.2025 stands vacated.
11. In above terms, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
