[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Chaubey vs Regional Manager Madhya Pradesh State on 23 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15155
1 WP-6033-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6033 of 2026
VINOD KUMAR CHAUBEY
Versus
REGIONAL MANAGER MADHYA PRADESH STATE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramanath Dwivedi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondent No.4 collector to comply the
execution order latter dated-17.04.2024, 01.05.2025, 01.06.2025,
07.10.2025, 29.10.2025, 12.11.2025, 28.11.2025.
(ii) Direct Respondent No. 4 (Collector) to comply with the execution
court's order within a time-bound manner.
(iii) Pass any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed an execution case before
the Seventh Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sagar in Civil Suit No.
3800004/2014 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2019
whereby the claim of the decree-holder was allowed and the defendant was
directed to pay compensation at the current market value of the said land, or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15155
2 WP-6033-2026
in the alternative, to provide land of the same level and standard at another
suitable place, equivalent to the area of 5,206 square feet of the disputed land
taken into possession, in respect of the loss suffered by the plaintiff in the
disputed property situated at Mauja Sagat-Khas, Settlement No. 263, Patwari
Halka No. 277, Tehsil and District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, Khasta No. 65,
admeasuring 7,191 square feet. The said judgment and decree were
challenged by the respondents by filing a regular Civil Appeal No. 12/2020,
which stood dismissed vide judgment dated 16.04.2024 affirming the decree
passed by the Trial Court. However, despite filing an execution case before
the learned Seventh Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sagar, the respondents
have failed to comply with the binding judicial directions compelling the
petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court by
filing the present petition.
3. The record indicates that a second appeal against the judgment and
decree is pending adjudication before this Court being S.A.No.1513 of 2024.
The petitioner has mentioned in para 2 of the petition that there is not stay
order till now in the pending second appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Corporation as
well as the State counsel have pointed out that there is a status quo order in
the pending second appeal vide order dated 07.05.2025 directing the parties
to maintain status quo. The said aspect has not been mentioned in the writ
petition, rather it is mentioned on affidavit that there is no interim order in
the pending second appeal. When the aforesaid aspect was pointed by the
State counsel, the petitioner's counsel submits that he has uploaded the status
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15155
3 WP-6033-2026
quo order in the ERP and he has continued with the arguments on merits.
5. A specific question was raised upon the petitioner's counsel that
whether any efforts were made by him to get the second appeal listed and to
get it decided at an early date, he fairly submits that no such efforts were
made by him. He has filed this petition seeking a direction to the Executing
Court to decide the matter in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (dead) Through Legal
Representatives and others vs. V. Rajamani and another reported in (2025) 9
SCC 568.
6. The fact remains that there is suppression on the part of the
petitioner in not bringing the correct facts before this Court. It is specifically
stated on affidavit that there is no stay order till now in the pending second
appeal. However, the fact remains that there is an order of status quo in the
pending S.A.No.1513 of 2024. Apart from this, there is no application filed
by the petitioner in the pending second appeal to get it decided at an early
date in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which
has directed for deciding the execution proceedings within six months. On
both counts, this appears to be a futile litigation before this Court.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court deem it appropriate to
dismiss this petition imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner to be
deposited in the Account of M.P. High Court Bar Association (SB A/C
No.519302010000549, IFS CODE:UBIN0551937, Union Bank of India,
State Bar Council, High Court Branch, Jabalpur) within seven days from
today.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15155
4 WP-6033-2026
8. However, a liberty is extended to the petitioner to file appropriate
application in the pending second appeal.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
