[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Sapphire Infratech Registered ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11549
1 WP-11763-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11763 of 2026
M/S SAPPHIRE INFRATECH REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
THROUGH PARTNERS ARVIND AGARWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Y.P.S. Rathore -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the
Tehsildar, Circle Mehra, City Centre, Gwalior in Case No. 34/2025-26/A-68
and the order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Jhansi Road, Gwalior in Appeal No. 116/2025-26.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the
aforesaid orders, submits that the impugned order under Section 248 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code was passed without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jhansi Road, Gwalior, which is presently
pending consideration.
3. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11549
2 WP-11763-2026
petitioners filed an application seeking stay of the order dated 11.02.2026;
however, the said application has been rejected by the appellate authority.
Learned counsel submits that the respondents are now proceeding to
demolish the structure/multi-storeyed building constructed by the petitioners
during the year 2015-16 over the land in question. It is contended that if such
coercive action is permitted, irreparable loss and prejudice would be caused
to the petitioners, and the very purpose of filing the appeal would be
frustrated.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that a demarcation had
earlier been conducted in the year 2011 by the competent revenue authority,
which was favouring the petitioner, but the same was not considered while
carrying out a fresh demarcation, which too was conducted behind the back
of the petitioners and on this and other grounds, it is submitted that the
petitioners have a strong prima facie case in the pending appeal, but rejection
of the stay application has placed them in a precarious position, as there is a
genuine apprehension that coercive action may be taken before the appeal is
decided. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to
maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the application for grant of stay under Section 52 of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code has been rejected on sound legal principles and does not
warrant interference. It is submitted that the petitioners were duly afforded
an opportunity of hearing and have been found to be encroachers over
Government land, hence, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11549
3 WP-11763-2026
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the petitioners have already availed the statutory
remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Tehsildar, which is
presently pending adjudication. Various grounds, including violation of
principles of natural justice, have been raised in the said appeal.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the order of eviction
passed under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code is allowed to be
implemented that too during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners
would suffer irreparable loss and the appeal itself may be rendered otiose.
8. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with
regard to the property in question till the final decision of the appeal pending
before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jhansi Road, Gwalior.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed
of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
