Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47872
1 WP-37817-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37817 of 2025
PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Choudhari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the notice dated 19/08/2025 which has been issued to the petitioner
in terms of proceedings initiated under Section 248 of MPLRC.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of property
since long. Similar proceedings were initiated against the petitioners' father
in the year 1977 and vide order dated 21/06/1977, no encroachment was
found on the Government land. The father of petitioners was found in
possession of land which was allotted by Panchayat in the year 1960. In the
year 1979, auction process of khasra No.1159 was initiated by Panchayat
Gunnor Tehsil and District Panna. The said auction process was challenged
by petitioners' father by filing a case before Sub Divisional Officer, Panna.
An enquiry was conducted by SDM who found that the petitioners' father
was in possession of khasra No.1159/1 and he was served with a notice dated
08/11/1974 which was subsequently declared to be illegal because on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47872
2 WP-37817-2025
22/04/1977 an inspection was carried out by SDO Panna and at the relevant
time, it was found that petitioners' father was in possession of property since
year 1960 and a house and Aata Chakki is built on said land. Thereafter, a
dispute arose between petitioners and their neighbours, for which a Civil Suit
was instituted by petitioners' father with respect to khasra No.1157/1 which
is having area 1.326 hectares. The judgment was pronounced on 01/07/2013.
It is argued that despite of all such proceedings being initiated by the
Authorities on earlier occasion, again a notice has been issued stating therein
that the property in question is a Government property bearing khasra
No.1157/1, therefore, why he should not be removed from the property in
question.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the
contentions and pointed out that it is only a show cause notice with respect to
part of land bearing khasra No.1157/1 area part of 1.326 hectares. The
documents which have been put forth before this Court by the petitioners are
with respect to khasra No.1159. The Authorities have not initiated
proceedings with respect to khasra No.1159. Petitioners have to establish that
they are not in unauthorized possession of part of khasra No.1157 which is a
Government land. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. He prays
for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record indicates that the show cause notice has been issued in
pursuance to proceedings under Section 248 of MPLRC with respect to part
of land bearing khasra No.1157/1 A area 1.326 hectares. The notice does not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47872
3 WP-37817-2025
reflect that the same is with respect to khasra No.1159, for which petitioner
claims to be in possession since his father's time i.e. year 1960. It is only a
show cause notice which has been issued under Section 248 of MPLRC with
respect to some other land for which petitioner does not say that his father is
in possession since year 1960.
6. Under these circumstances, as khasra numbers are entirely different,
petitioners cannot be considered to be in possession of said property since
year 1960 i.e. since his father's time. It is only the initiation of proceedings
under Section 248 of MPLRC against the petitioners for which they are
required to apprise the Authorities by filing relevant documents and to
demonstrate that they are not in illegal possession of property in question.
The said aspect cannot be looked into by this Court while exercising powers
under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, no relief can be
extended to the petitioners. However, petitioners may file detailed reply to
the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 248 of MPLRC.
7. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
