Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25024
1 WP-18600-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 18600 of 2023
ANAND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shantnu Chourasia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Sunil Verma - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
(Reserved on 19.08.2025)
(Delivered on 04.09.2025)
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2023
[Annexure P/1] passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore
whereby a team has been constituted for removal of his encroachment over
Devsthan Baba Bade Hanuman Mandir, Ward No.9, Sanwer, District Indore
and for delivery of charge of the Pujari of the temple to respondent No.3. By
way of amendment the petitioner has also challenged the order dated
24.07.2023 [Annexure P/10] passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer cum
District Magistrate, Sanwer, District Indore whereby direction has been
issued to Tehsildar for removal of encroachment of petitioner and for
delivery of charge to respondent No.3.
2. As per the petitioner, his ancestors and after him he has been the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25024
2 WP-18600-2023
pujari of the temple. A civil suit was preferred before the Civil Court for
declaration of title and permanent injunction which was dismissed by
judgment and decree dated 23.12.2017 which was affirmed by this Court by
judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed in S.A. No.46 of 1998. Therein a
direction was issued for registration of a public trust in respect of the temple.
In compliance of the said judgment the petitioner made an application before
respondent No.2 for his appointment as the pujari. In the meanwhile
applications were also preferred by respondents 3 and 4 for appointment. The
application of the petitioner was not considered and the application of
respondents 3 and 4 were considered and by order dated 25.01.2023
[Annexure P/6] respondent No.3 was appointed as the pujari. Appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the
Additional Collector by order dated 27.02.2023. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred Second Appeal before the
Commissioner, Indore which is pending and during pendency of the said
appeal the impugned orders have been issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during
pendency of the appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner no
direction could have been issued for ousting the petitioner from the temple
premises. The impugned orders have been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice and without affording opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. The orders have been passed in undue haste and within a day's
time which are apparently mala fide. It is hence submitted that the impugned
orders be quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25024
3 WP-18600-2023
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the
second appeal preferred before the Commissioner by the petitioner has
already been dismissed by order dated 18.04.2024 which order has not been
and could not have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition which
has hence been rendered infructuous since any interim order passed during
the pendency of the proceedings merges with the final order. The remedy of
the petitioner is to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner. The
petition hence has deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
6. By order dated 25.01.2023 the Sub Divisional Officer appointed
respondent No.3 as the Pujari of the temple. The said order was affirmed by
the Additional Collector in appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dated
27.02.2023. Against the said order the petitioner preferred second appeal
before the Commissioner, Indore during pendency of which the impugned
orders have been passed. It is not the case of the petitioner that in the appeal
preferred before the Commissioner the operation of the orders passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector were stayed. It has not
even been averred as to whether any such application was preferred and what
was the fate of the same. If orders have been passed by the authorities, until
and unless there is any order by a superior authority staying their effect and
execution, they are bound to be executed. Since there was an order in force
directing for appointment of respondent No.3 as the Pujari of the temple then
the authorities themselves were legally bound to give effect to the same since
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25024
4 WP-18600-2023
the same had not been stayed by any superior authority.
7. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order
passed by the Additional Collector has been dismissed by the Commissioner
Indore by order dated 18.04.2024 meaning thereby that the orders passed by
the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector have been affirmed. It does not
appear that any grievance was raised by the petitioner before the
Commissioner to the effect that despite pendency of the second appeal
before him the order passed by the authorities below have been executed.
Instead this writ petition has been preferred straight away. The grievance as
raised in this petition could have been and ought to have been raised before
the Commissioner himself which has not been done.
8. The impugned orders are only interim orders in nature. They are
towards implementation of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as
affirmed by the Additional Collector. The grievance of the petitioner would
have been required to be considered only if the appeal preferred by him
before the Divisional Commissioner had been allowed or was pending since
it is only in that case that the question of restitution in favour of the
petitioner would have arisen. Since the appeal preferred by him has itself
been dismissed the question of restitution does not arise since after dismissal
of the appeal the process of execution of the orders would have again been
started. There is hence no reason to enter upon the contentions as raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the manner in which the
impugned orders have been issued by respondents 1 and 2.
9. Pertinently against the order passed by the Commissioner, as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25024
5 WP-18600-2023
instructions dated 04.02.2019 [Annexure P/3] of the State Government an
appeal lies before the State Government. There is no averment in this petition
that any such appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, meaning thereby
that the order of the Commissioner has attained finality, consequent to which
the orders passed by the authorities below are bound to be executed and
charge of Pujari handed over to respondent No.3 and encroachment of
petitioner to be removed. The remedy of the petitioner is as aforesaid.
However, the legality of the impugned orders in the available facts and
circumstances of the case cannot be questioned by the petitioner.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion I do not find any reason to
interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. They are
accordingly affirmed as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
