[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sughar Singh S/O Late Gajraj Singh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7243
1 WP-8645-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8645 of 2025
SUGHAR SINGH S/O LATE GAJRAJ SINGH THROUGH LRS (1) SMT.
KAPURI DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
2. The instant petition was initially filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and was registered as M.P. No.1241/2019.
Subsequently, vide order dated 25.02.2025, the petition was permitted to be
converted into a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
and accordingly, the instant writ petition has been registered.
3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India takes exception to the order dated 22.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed
by the Additional Collector, District Gwalior in Case No.0004/Nigrani/2018-
19 and the order order dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Naib-
Tahsildar, Circle Lashkar, Gwalior, rejecting the objection raised by the
petitioner as regards maintainability of the proceedings under Section 248 of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7243
2 WP-8645-2025
"the MPLR Code") initiated against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of
arguments, submitted that the land in question is forming part of Bungalow
No.26, which, according to the petitioners, was a private bungalow and was
transferred in favour of predecessors of the petitioners by its subsequent
purchaser. He submits that since the constructions in question is existing
prior to 1950, in terms of Clause 3 (ii) of the proviso appended to Section
248 (1) of the MPLR Code, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to institute
proceedings under Section 248 of the MPLR Code in respect of said
building. However, his objection has been improperly rejected by the
Tahsildar, which order has been affirmed by the revisional authority.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the order passed by the Tahsildar is only an interlocutory order. The
objection of maintainability has been rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground
that the petitioners have failed to produce any document pertaining to
ownership over the land in question, as per records land in question is
government land. He submits that even in the present writ petition, the
petitioners have not placed on record any title document. He further submits
that the matter has been fixed for final consideration by the Tahsildar and
liberty was granted to the petitioners to place such other evidence in support
of their contentions as they may desire; therefore, the order impugned does
not prejudice any of the rights of the petitioners. The petition at this stage,
challenging an interlocutory order, is not maintainable. He further submits
that since the application for substitution of legal heirs was not filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7243
3 WP-8645-2025
petitioners in the original proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, the
revisional authority has rightly declined entertaining the said application,
even otherwise, since the petitioners are contesting the matter on merits, no
prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners by the order impugned in
the present writ petition.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks
leave of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to
adduce such evidence as may be permissible in law in the pending
proceedings before the Tahsildar, which may be considered by the Tahsildar
while passing the final order in the matter, including evidence to substantiate
the non-applicability of Section 248 of the MPLR Code while finally
deciding the the proceedings in question.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter is
yet to be adjudicated on merits by the Tahsildar and the order impugned
passed by the Tahsildar itself grants liberty to produce the material/evidence
on which the petitioners may rely.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the present petition is
permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of in terms of liberty aforestated as
prayed for by the petitioners and as stated in the order dated 30.07.2018
passed by the Naib-Tahsildar, Circle Lashkar, Gwalior.
9. Accordingly, interim order dated 19.03.2019 staying the
proceedings of Case No.34/17-18/A-68 pending before the respondent No.2-
Tehsildar stands vacated.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7243
4 WP-8645-2025
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
