[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Muneshwar Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8728
1 WP-8905-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8905 of 2026
MUNESHWAR SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajnish Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeks following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, commanding Respondent No. 5 (Tehsildar,
City Centre Circle, District Gwalior) to forthwith comply with the
remand order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 (Sub-
Divisional Officer, Lashkar) in the appeal as well as this Hon'ble
Court's earlier directive dated 25.03.2022 in Writ Petition
No.1880/2022, and to expeditiously adjudicate and dispose of the
Case No. 0009/2016-17/31-70 under Section 250 of the MPLRC
within a strict time-bound period of 60 days from the date of receipt
of this order, and ensuring no further adjournments are granted
without cogent reasons recorded in writing.
II. Direct Respondents No. 1 (State of Madhya Pradesh) and No. 2
(Collector, District Gwalior) to oversee and ensure strict compliance
with the aforesaid directions by Respondent No. 5, and to initiate
appropriate departmental action or inquiry against Respondents No.
4 (Tehsildar, Lashkar Circle) and No.5 for their willful non-
compliance with this Hon'ble Court's order dated 25.03.2022, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8728
2 WP-8905-2026
SDM's remand order dated 10.06.2025, and for causing inordinate
delays exceeding three years prior to transfer and continuing
thereafter since February 2026, which reflect a disrespectful and
lethargic attitude towards judicial mandates.
III. Direct Respondent No.6 (Commandant, 14th Battalion, Special
Armed Force) to forthwith appear and participate in the proceedings
before Respondent No. 5, without seeking further adjournments, and
to vacate the unlawful encroachment on the Subject Land pending
final adjudication, in order to prevent further prejudice to the
Petitioner.
IV. Award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner. V. Grant
any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem just Proper and
equitable in the facts.and circumstances of the case."
3 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had moved an application under Section 250 of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for restoration of possession over the
fourth part of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 1822 and 1823 situated at
Village Shahar Lashkar, District Gwalior, which has been unlawfully
encroached by the respondent No.6. He further submits that earlier, the
application filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of vide order dated
14.09.2022 passed by the Tahsildar, Gwalior as contained in Annexure P/8,
which was challenged in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Lashkar, Gwalior, which was allowed and vide order dated 10.06.2025
(Annexure P-9), by setting aside the order 14.09.2022 passed by the
Tahsildar, the matter stood remanded to the Tahsildar to decide the
application preferred by the petitioner in terms of the directions contained
therein within a period of 60 days.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that inspite of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8728
3 WP-8905-2026
there being a time-bound direction by the appellate authority, i.e., Sub-
Divisional Officer, Lashkar, District Gwalior to the Tahsildar, Gwalior for
deciding the application preferred by the petitioner within a period of 60
days, the same is yet not decided by the Tahsildar and the petitioner would
be satisfied if a time-bound direction is issued to the Tahsildar to decide the
pending application and ensure compliance of the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
6 . The substantive relief claimed by the petitioner in the present
petition is seeking enforcement of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in Case No.3/Appeal/2024-2025 on 10.06.2025, i.e., disposal of the
application preferred by the petitioner by the Tahsildar within a period of 60
days as directed in the said order.
7. This Court is of the opinion that in case, an order passed by the
revenue authority is not implemented, then the person has the remedy to seek
execution of the order already passed by invoking inherent powers vested in
the authority under Section 32 of the MPLR Code, 1959. The said aspect has
been decided by this Court in the case of Dakho Bai vs. State of M.P. and
others, 2015 (3) MPLJ 202 and the relevant paras of the said judgment reads
as under:-
"5.Apparently, the M. P. Land Revenue Code does not provide any
independent provision vesting power upon any Revenue Authority to
execute an order passed by Revenue Authorities under the Code.
6. However, section 32 of the Code deals with inherent powers with
all Revenue Courts to be exercised for ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of the process of Court.
7 . For convenience and ready reference section 32 of M. P. Land
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8728
4 WP-8905-2026
Revenue Code is reproduced herein below :-
32. Inherent power of Revenue Courts. Nothing in this Code
shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power
of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of
the Court.
9. In the present case there is no express provision in the Code for
implementation of an order passed by a Revenue Authority and thus
a Revenue Authority can very well exercise power of execution of
an order already passed by invoking its inherent powers under
section 32 to do complete justice."
8. In view of the above enunciation of law as laid down by this Court
and there being nothing on record to establish that the petitioner has invoked
the said remedy before the authority which passed the order dated
10.06.2025, the admission of the present writ petition is declined. The
petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy as is available under the MPLR
Code, 1959 itself. No order as to costs.
9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
