Anant Ram Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56534
1 WP-25991-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
th
ON THE 24 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25991 of 2024
ANANT RAM CHOUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal appeared for the petitioner.
Shri Ayur Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Prashansa Bais PL appeared for respondent.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders
dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P/9) and dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P/11).
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the present petition are that for
the disputed land located at Village Surajpura Tehsil & District, Chhattarpur
admeasuring 4.90 acres bearing Khasra No. 120/4 Ga, the mother of the
petitioner was granted patta. Subsequently, the said patta was cancelled
in suo-moto proceedings registered by the Collector while observing that the
disputed land falls within the ambit of Forest land. The petitioner alleges that
the said order was passed behind his back without affording him an
opportunity of hearing. Owing to the order so passed, the name of the
petitioner was directed to be deleted from the revenue records. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 29-07-
2026 11:21:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56534
2 WP-25991-2024
Revenue, but to no avail. Left with no remedy before the revenue authorities,

the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. 9522/2014, whereby, this Court
vide order dated 27.09.2022 set aside the order passed by the Collector on
the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice while remitting the
matter back to the Collector with a direction to carryout demarcation in
presence of the petitioner. In compliance with the foregoing directions, the
needful was undertaken but the Collector concluded in a similar tone,
affirming his earlier order. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a futile
attempt before the appellate authority viz., the Additional Commissioner. As
a last resort, the petitioner is before this Court by virtue of the present
petition.
3. Senior Counsel contends that this is a repeat visit of the petitioner
before this Court. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this
Court by way of W.P. No.9522/2014, and by filing the said petition, the
petitioner had questioned an order dated 07.08.2000 passed by the Additional
Collector, Chhatarpur, by which the petitioner was sought to be evicted from
the property which was allotted to the petitioner on patta. This Court, set
aside the order impugned and remitted back the matter to the Additional
Collector, Chhatarpur, with a direction to afford opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and carry out demarcation of the land in the presence of the
petitioner, and then pass an order afresh. Pursuant to the order passed by this
Court, the Collector has passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, which
is contained in Annexure P-9.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 29-07-
2026 11:21:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56534
3 WP-25991-2024
4. It is the contention of the counsel that the land was allotted to the

petitioner on patta, as is evident from Annexure P/1. The land was never
recorded as a forest land in the records. There was failure on the part of the
State authorities to demonstrate that the land in question was earmarked as a
reserved or protected forest. It is the contention of the counsel that there
existed no document on record to substantiate that the land which was
allotted to the petitioner was a forest land, and without appreciating the
aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Additional Collector has passed the
impugned order.
5. It is further contended by the counsel that before passing the
impugned order, a report was requisitioned from the Revenue Inspector. The
said report is contained in Annexure P-10, and perusal of the report reflects
that the land was recorded as a forest land by the Tehsildar, Chhatarpur vide
order dated 07.08.2000 and accordingly, the land was fenced by the Forest
Department.
6. It is contended by the counsel that every land cannot be treated as
a reserved or protected forest. It is further contended by the counsel that in
terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.N.
GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267
, a
circular dated 13/01/1997 contained in Annexure P/5 was issued by the
Department of Revenue, and in terms of the said circular, the State
Government clarified that when the land is more than 10 hectares, and, if
there are 200 or more standing trees, then the said land would be treated as a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 29-07-
2026 11:21:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56534
4 WP-25991-2024
forest. In the case in hand, this requirement, which finds mention in the

circular dated 13/01/1997 (Annexure P/5) was not satisfied. Thus, the
impugned order passed by the Collector is unsustainable, as per which
directions have been issued to record the land as a forest land in the revenue
records.
7 . Per contra , counsel for the respondents contend that the present
petition is misconceived and legally untenable, in asmuch as, the petitioner has
suppressed material facts regarding the true nature of the land. It is further
submitted that the in accordance with the Judgment of the Apex Court in T.N.
GodavarmanThirumulpad(Supra), and in tune with the Government of M.P.,
Revenue Department's letter dated 13.01.1997, the granted in the
patta
petitioner's favour was subsequently cancelled. In fact, the patta so allowed
was void ab initio being allowed on a forest land without prior approval required
under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Furthermore, in
compliance with this Court's order, a fresh demarcation, as directed, was carried
out backed by spot inspection and due hearing, which ultimately resulted in well-
reasoned findings arrived at by the Collector. Thus, in absence of any illegality
and procedural impropriety, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
9. Considering the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the
record reflects that previously an order was passed by the Additional
Collector on 07/08/2000, directing ouster of the petitioner from the land in
question. Prior to the aforesaid order, the Tehsildar had already passed an
order. The aforesaid orders were questioned by the present petitioner on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 29-07-
2026 11:21:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56534
5 WP-25991-2024
ground that demarcation was carried out in absence of the present petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court remitted back the matter to the Additional Collector
with a direction to carry out demarcation in presence of the petitioner and
other necessary parties, (if any) and then pass a fresh order.
10. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court in W.P.
No.9522/2014, demarcation was carried out. The said report is contained in
Annexure P-10. A perusal of Annexure P-10 clearly reflects that the
demarcation was carried out in the presence of the present petitioner. The
petitioner has not disputed this aspect of the matter that he was present in the
demarcation proceedings which were carried out pursuant to the direction of
this Court in WP 9522/2014. It is also evident from perusal of the report
contained in Annexure P-10 as well as the impugned order, that the
petitioner had not disputed the factum of the land being a forest land. The
petitioner, continued to litigate the matter on the stand that the land in
question was allotted to the petitioner on patta vide order dated 08-06-1984.
However, the petitioner, at no point of time, disputed that the said land was
not a forest land.
11. It is evident from perusal of the order of Tahsildar dated
22/07/2000 (page 40 of Annexure P/6) that the land in question was a
notified forest area and the Board of Revenue also observed that the land was
notified as a forest land (Annexure P/7). The said aspect of the land being
notified as forest land, was not disputed by the present petitioner before the
Collector. The stand of the petitioner is reproduced in paragraph 1 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 29-07-
2026 11:21:11

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56534
6 WP-25991-2024
order of the Collector dated 31/01/2024. Therefore, once the land having

been earmarked as a forest land, the allotment of patta in favour of the
present petitioner was unsustainable, in view of the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra). The demarcation proceeding
having been carried out in presence of the present petitioner and there being
no protest on the part of the present petitioner regarding the nature of land,
either in the demarcation proceedings or before the Collector, interference
with the impugned order is not warranted.
12. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 29-07-
2026 11:21:11