[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishore vs Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10707
1 WP-3444-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3444 of 2026
KISHORE
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mithilesh K. Tripathi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) It is , therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent not disturb
to the petitioner and not remove/disposes from the said land till the
pendency of representation, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent to consider the representation and granted
Patta to the petitioner in the forest land, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this
case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded."
It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing at forest Range
Khaknar District Burhanpur along with family since 60 years and a Patta has
been granted by the department for the period of the 30 years. The father of
the petitioner has already allotted the same land and they are constructed the
house for residential purpose. The respondent No.5 by interfering into the
matter filed a complaint before the authorities against the petitioner. The
father of the respondent No.5 had filed a civil suit being Civil suit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10707
2 WP-3444-2026
NO.34(2)/2008 and the trial Court has passed the order in favour of the
petitioner rejecting the application filed by the father of the respondent No.5.
Earlier a petition was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed off granting
liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the appropriate forum.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 21.01.2026 which is
pending consideration before the respondents/authorities.
On a specific question put to learned counsel for the petitioner to
demonstrate that how the petitioner in possession of the property in question,
it is submitted that a patta was granted way back by the State Government to
the respondent No.5 who has permitted the petitioner to stay on the land in
question and in pursuance to which, he has occupied the portion of the land
allotted by way of patta to the respondent No.5. It is his case that he is in
possession of the property in question since last 30-40 years. It is argued that
as the patta granted to the respondent No.5 has already lived his life. The
same has not been renewed. Therefore the petitioner has filed an application
in the year 2009 before the authorities for grant of patta, but no action has
been taken. Now, by way of a reminder, he has filed a representation on
21.01.2026 to the forest officers to consider his application for grant of patta
and thereafter on 24.01.2026 he has rushed to the Court by filing this petition
seeking a writ of mandamus to the authorities to decide the pending
representation.
First of all, the petitioner is having no right over the land in question
because he is in possession of the property in question on the basis of the
permission granted by the private respondent. The patta granted to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10707
3 WP-3444-2026
private respondent has already lived his life. The same was never renewed as
per the petitioner himself. Secondly, the representation was filed on
21.01.2026 and the petitioner has rushed to the Court within three days and
filed this petition on 24.01.2026. The petitioner has not given breathing time
to the respondents to dwell upon the representation filed by him. Therefore,
this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus even for directing to decide
the pending representation. As the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
right in his favour with respect to property in question, no relief can be
extended to the petitioner.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
