Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Dhakad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27414
1 WP-42059-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 30 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 42059 of 2025
DHARMENDRA DHAKAD AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Padam Shri Agrawal Panal Lawyer appearing on behalf of Advocate
General/State/respondents.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :-
"1. It is, therefore, prayed that Writ petition may kindly be allowed.
2. That, notices issued to Petitioners (Vide annexure P-1 in series)
may kindly be quash,
3. That, Respondents may kindly be directed to not to take law in
their hands and demolish legal construction of Petitioners to
maintain Khaliyan for harvesting and threshing.
4. That, any other relief that Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also kindly be allowed.
5. Respondents No.1 may kindly be directed to hold legal enquiry
and pass detail and speaking order prior of passing of any order
and sufficient opportunity of hearing may kindly be allowed.
6. Respondents may kindly be directed to keep available record of
land from 1940 onward prior to holding enquiry.
7. Cost of the petition may kindly be granted."
3. It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing survey Nos. 272 & 107
situated at village Sonkhara , Tehsil Bamori, District Guna have been earmarked
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27414
2 WP-42059-2025
as Khaliyan and, therefore, it is meant for common use by all the villagers.
However, the respondent No. 5 is illegally trying to raise construction of a school
building on the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gangaram Loniya vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. (W.P. No. 7707/2012 vide judgment dated 17/11/2025) has been pleased to
hold that the land earmarked for Khaliyan cannot be diverted for any other
purpose. He further submits that ignoring the aforesaid preposition of law, the
Tehsildar / respondent No. 4 had issued impugned notice to the petitioners under
section 248 (1) of MPLRC, 1959 calling upon to show cause as to why petitioners
be not evicted from the Government Land. He further submits that on the
land earmarked for Khaliyan only temporary walls have been raised by the
petitioners, which cannot be treated to be encroachment and, therefore, notice
issued by the Tehsildar deserves to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel objects to the admission of the
writ petition and submits that primarily the petitioners are aggrieved by the notice
issued to them under section 248(1) of MPLRC, 1959. The writ petition filed
against the notice is itself not maintainable. It is for the petitioners to submit their
reply before the Tehsildar and establish their claim. He further submits that even
otherwise, in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners that would
be further amenable to the statutory remedy of first appeal and second appeal as
provided under section 44 of MPLRC, 1959. The petitioners by way of filing
instant writ petition are trying to circumvent his statutory remedy which may not
be permissible. He further submits that not a single document has been filed by
the petitioners to establish their story as regards alleged change of use of the land
earmarked for khaliyan. Accordingly, he submits that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27414
3 WP-42059-2025
5. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. Specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to
whether he intends to file his reply to the impugned show cause notice and avail
the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the provision of MPLRC, 1959,
but learned counsel for the petitioners insisted that his submissions be considered.
Accordingly, this Court proceeded to consider the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioners.
8. Perusal of the relief clause made in the petition itself indicate that the
petitioners are seeking protection of the constructions raised by them on land
earmarked as Khaliyan. It is an admitted position that the Khaliyan of the village
is a common land meant for use by all the villagers. The petitioners have not
shown any authority under which, they could have constructed the wall on the
land earmarked for Khaliyan. Since, the petitioners have constructed walls on the
land earmarked as Khaliyan, notices under section 248 (1) of MPLRC have been
issued to them by the Tehsildar concerned. The aforesaid notices in the considered
opinion of this Court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or violating any
statutory provision of law.
9. No document whatsoever has been filed by the petitioners alongwith the
writ petition to substantiate that the land earmarked for Khaliyan is sought to be
diverted or altered. There is nothing on record to suggest that any school building
is proposed to be constructed on the land earmarked for Khaliyan. It, therefore,
clearly transpires that the petitioners are trying to avoid proceedings initiated
against them for removal of their encroachment from the land earmarked for
Khaliyan.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27414
4 WP-42059-2025
10. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Gangaram Loniya (supra)
relied upon by the petitioners may not be applicable in the given facts and
circumstances of the case as the petitioners are seeking protection of their
encroachment on the Government land by filing the instant writ petition.
11. The notices impugned in the present writ petition fixed returnable for filing
reply/objection as on 03/07/2025 & 09/03/2025. The petitioners had all
opportunities to submit their reply to the said show cause notices. However, it
appears that without submitting reply to the said show cause notices, now this writ
petition has been filed which cannot be countenanced in the eye of law.
12. In view of above consideration and discussion, this Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned notices under section 248 (1) of MPLRC,
1959 issued by the Tehsildar to the petitioners.
13. The instant writ petition being bereft of merit and substance deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed.
14. All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Durgekar
