Union Of India vs Naval Kishore Tiwari
2026 Latest Caselaw 1972 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Union Of India vs Naval Kishore Tiwari on 24 February, 2026

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15895




                                                                1                             MP-3422-2025
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                             &
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
                                                  ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                   MISC. PETITION No. 3422 of 2025
                                                 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                                                            Versus
                                              NAVAL KISHORE TIWARI AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                     Shri Arnav Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
                                     Shri Jagdamba Bux Singh - Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and
                           4.
                                     Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

                                                                    ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-P/1), whereby Original Application No. 200/1131/2018 filed by the respondents herein has been allowed.

2. The land bearing Khasra No. 136/2, admeasuring 0.194 hectare, situated at Mouza/Village - Ganj, Tehsil - Rajnagar, District - Chhatarpur (Madhya Pradesh) was purchased by Respondent No. 1/Naval Kishore Tiwari. The part of the said land was acquired for the construction of a railway line from Lalitpur to Singrauli (Khajuraho region). All the applicants nominated Shri Bhupendra Tiwari for employment.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15895

2 MP-3422-2025

3. Initially, the respondent No.6/Kaushal Kishore Tiwari, being an elder brother, submitted his NOC in favour of respondent No.2/Bhupendra Tiwari. When the selection reached the final stage, i.e, the document verification, he wrote a letter to claim an appointment in place of the petitioner.

4. Since two claims were received in respect of one acquisition of the land of the joint family, the Railway authorities stopped the process for the grant of appointment to anyone. Hence, all the family members, excluding Respondent No. 6 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 200/1131/2018. Notices were issued to Kaushal Kishore Tiwari, he did not appear.

5. The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.02.2025 has allowed the application, holding that applicant No. 2 was eligible for employment assistance. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, only the Union of India/Railways has approached this Court. Respondent No. 6, who had objected to the appointment, has not approached this Court to challenge the order of the Tribunal.

6. Even after the issuance of the notice, Respondent No. 6/Kaushal Kishore Tiwari has not entered his appearance. Therefore, it appears that he had no claim for appointment and had merely submitted an objection to oppose the employment granted to his brother, Bhupendra Tiwari. As he did not contest the matter either before the Tribunal or before this Court, the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the claim of Applicant No. 2 for appointment. He did not filed the O.A to claim appointment .

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15895

3 MP-3422-2025

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Ashish chaubey and others, M.P No.3967 of 2025 dated 13.11.2025 in which, petition filed by the Union of India has been allowed on the ground that the acquired land is very small and after acquisition of land, the owner does not become a landless person.

8. In the present case, from the initial stage, the claim of Respondent No. 2 was processed by the Union of India, and the same was not rejected on the ground of entitlement. It was rejected only when Respondent No. 6/Kaushal Kishore Tiwari submitted an objection. Therefore, the present case has distinguishable facts.

9. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

                                   (VIVEK RUSIA)                                 (PRADEEP MITTAL)
                                       JUDGE                                          JUDGE
                           Prar