Shri Ram Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-44815-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 5 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44815 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030300052026
SHRI RAM ADIWASI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
“7 (i) That, the respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to decide the
case of the petitioner/ representation vide annexure-p-5 and provide the
permission to the petitioner to sale out the agriculture land bearing survey no
survey no 133/1 area 0.0940 situated at Village- Kurachor Goverdha Khurd
Tehsil- Karahal, District Sheopur M.P.
(ii) That, Any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts
and circumstances of the case including the cost of the litigation be also
given to the petitioner, in the ends of justice.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the lawful owner and recorded Bhumiswami of agricultural land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
12:42:08 PM

2 WP-44815-2026
bearing Survey No.133/1, measuring 0.0940 hectares, situated at Village

Kurachor Goverdha Khurd, Tehsil Karahal, District Sheopur (M.P.). It is
submitted that the land was initially allotted in the year 1971 after following
due process of law, and the petitioner has been in continuous possession,
carrying out agricultural activities thereon. It is further submitted that owing
to pressing family circumstances, including the serious chronic illness of the
petitioner’s brother and the upcoming marriage of his son, the petitioner
urgently requires funds for domestic expenditure and medical treatment.
Consequently, the petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 2
seeking permission to transfer/sell the said land.
3. It is further submitted that upon receiving the application,
Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings and called for reports from
subordinate authorities. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 (Tehsildar
Karahal) submitted a detailed report dated 11.03.2026 Annexure-P/2).
Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 (SDO Revenue, Sheopur) examined the record
and forwarded recommendations to Respondent No. 2 on
16.03.2025(Annexure-P/3). Despite receipt of the said report and
recommendation, Respondent No. 2 has failed to pass any order and has
remained inactive in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that such
inaction is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law, as well as state
policy/guidelines issued by Respondent No. 1 vide circular dated 17.01.2014
(Annexure-P/4). It is submitted that since the allotment dates back to 1971
(prior to 1980), and therefore there exists no legal impediment in considering
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
12:42:08 PM

3 WP-44815-2026
the petitioner’s request. The petitioner also submitted a formal representation

dated 07.09.2026 (Annexure-P/5) before Respondent No. 2, which remains
pending. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a
direction is issued to Respondent No. 2 (Collector, District Sheopur) to
consider and decide the representation/application within a fixed timeframe.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that
the respondents have no objection if an appropriate direction is issued to the
competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending
representation/application in accordance with law.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record,
and considering the limited scope of the prayer, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to
Respondent No.2/Collector, District Sheopur, to consider and decide the
petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2026 (Annexure-P/5) by passing a
reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, taking into account the
reports/recommendations available on record, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands
disposed of.
9. E-copy/certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
12:42:08 PM

4 WP-44815-2026
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
VJ


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 11/6/2026
12:42:08 PM