Sharda Devi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Revenue

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30691
1 WP-44384-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44384 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020426272026
SHARDA DEVI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Manav Beniwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Mayuri Jain - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"7. RELIEF PRAYED FOR:
That, the petitioner, therefore, prays:-
7.1. That the Impugned Order dated 08.10.2026 passed by Respondent No. 5 in
0001/4-70/2026-27 be quashed;
रा. ..
7.2. That the Impugned Order dated 12.10.2026 No. passed by Respondent
/2914/ /2026 be quashed; 5 in
मांक र डर
7.3. That any other subsequent proceedings qua the Impugned Order dated
08.10.2026 passed by Respondent No. 5 in 0001/ -70/2026-27 be
रा. .. अ
quashed;
7.4. That Respondent No. 5 be directed to Implead all the Joint
Holders/Bhumiswamis as necessary parties to the proceedings in terms of
Khasra annexed at Annexure-P/3:
7.5. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be issued in favour of
the Petitioner."
2. Heard, learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:09:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30691
2 WP-44384-2026
3. Though, this Court is of the opinion that in view of specific

provision under Section 250 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code [for short,
referred to as 'MPLRC], the petitioner should avail the remedy available
under the law, but learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the
petition is required to be entertained though the alternative efficacious
remedy is available, as in earlier round of litigation, the Commissioner has
directed to implead all the heirs but instead of impleading all the necessary
parties including the present petitioner, by impleading selective parties, the
proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, by relying on the final order
passed by the co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 1668/2022 , it is submitted that
in the said petition, the order which was passed by the authority can be
considered to be passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In such
circumstances, the petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
opposed the petition by submitting that petitioner is having alternative
efficacious remedy and all the contentions which are sought to be agitated in
the present petition can be agitated before the appropriate authority and same
can be decided by the said authority.
5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties
and perused the record.
6. Considering the fact that under Article 226 of the Constitution,
writ jurisdiction is exercised where Court is expressly satisfied that there is
breach of fundamental right or there is utter violation of principles of natural
justice coupled with the fact that there is undisputed facts emerging from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:09:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30691
3 WP-44384-2026
matter. When the statutory efficacious remedy under such proceedings is

available, the contention which is sought to be agitated including the
violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be agitated before the
authority. Considering the nature of proceedings, Court may entertain in
general, as a general rule or the Court may not entertain such petition when
alternative remedy is available, when the Court is of the opinion.
7. In the present case, the contention which is sought to be agitated
though sounds to be effective that despite availability of alternative
efficacious remedy, petition is required to be entertained. However, I am of
the view that this contention is misconceived in the facts of the present case,
as looking to the impugned order passed by the authority whereby authority
has impleaded some of the legal heirs and non-impleadment of other heirs
are also required to be tested by the concerned appellate authority by
considering the relevant factual aspects of the matter about their entitlement
to be impleaded as a party and,therefore, for that reason as well as looking to
the general principal that when there is statutory efficacious alternative
remedy, Court should normally refrain from entertaining the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of the above discussion, I found no reason to entertain the
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, when statutory efficacious
remedy is available whereby petitioner can raise all the contentions and
agitate his grievance before the authority, which can very well be considered
by the authority in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:09:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30691
4 WP-44384-2026
only on the ground of availability of statutory efficacious alternative remedy.

10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
about the merits of other contentions raised by the petitioner.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
sh

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 30-10-2026
18:09:22