[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27212
1 WP-12365-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 12365 of 2026
KAMLESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard counsel for the petitioners at length.
After considering the material available on record, the counsel for the
petitioner submitted that though there is no notice has been issued and no
opportunity of hearing is given to the present petitioners and submitted that
as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Davinder Singh reported in 2025 (5) SCC 1 and direction issued in
paragraph 94, action of the respondent authority are not in consonance with
law. He further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.
No. 12161/2026 has considered the case of the other persons and granted
relief by way of granting interim relief and notice is also issued.
2. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that he has not received
any definite instructions as from the pleadings there is no specific act is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27212
2 WP-12365-2026
attributed to the officers of the State authority and has submitted that from
the pleadings, it seems that the main grievance is against the respondent No.4
and 5.
3. On perusal of the petition, there is no specific details are given
except annexing the document that the 40 partitioners, who are party in the
present petition are owning which house by pleadings in the petition by
mentioning details regarding the house number, the area which is not comes
out from the pleadings and prayer prayed in the present petition is without
mentioning any specific area. The prayer in the petition as under:-
"a. To call for the entire relevant records from the
possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal.
b. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents not to take any coercive action against
the present petitioners in the nature of dispossessing or
demolishing the suit houses that has been constructed
over the aforesaid property.
C. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondents
in the matter of dispossessing and demolishing the
houses that has been constructed over the aforesaid
land.
d. Any other writ order/orders, direction/ directions
which deems fit and proper may also be passed;
e. Award cost of the litigation to the petitioner.
4. He has submitted that since there is no specific prayer pleaded in the
petition but Court has looked into the every document annexed with the
petition even though there is no specific pleadings pleaded in the petition
and averment made in the petition by way of pleadings.
5. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that such petition
can be considered as a improper petition with vague averments unless the
petitioners give the specific details of property of all the 40 petitioners about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27212
3 WP-12365-2026
the subject matter of the petition by amending the prayer in appropriate
manner, no relief can be granted as prayed in the present petition. It is
difficult that such petition can be considered without making specific prayer
in the petition by mentioning the specific details of plot number of respective
petitioners etc. and area of plot of the accordingly. The counsel for the
petitioners is not inclined to amend the prayer clause.
6. Petition cannot be entertained on the ground that specific pleadings
by giving details are not made. However, it is open for the petitioners to file
fresh proceedings by giving all necessary details in the petition in
appropriate manner.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed w ithout expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
R
