Sandeep Singh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-2896-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2896 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC030035212021
SANDEEP SINGH RAWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Raja Girraj Sharma - Advocate for the intervenor.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in view of the order
dated 22.09.2026, he seeks permission to carry out the necessary amendment
in the cause title of the petition.
2. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
petitioners is permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause
title of the petition on Board itself.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
heard finally.
4. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 24.12.2020 whereby the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

2 WP-2896-2021
been cancelled solely on the basis of a complaint and the report submitted by

the Tehsildar, without following due procedure of law and in complete
disregard to the policy circulars issued by the State Government governing
such allotments.
5. It is submitted that the State Government, with an object to
rehabilitate deprived and disadvantaged persons and to make barren and
uncultivable land cultivable, had issued a policy circular dated 25.04.2003
laying down the criteria and preference for allotment of such lands. The said
policy was subsequently extended in the year 2005. In pursuance of the
aforesaid policy decisions, pattas were granted to eligible persons, including
the petitioners, after due process and consideration by the competent
authorities.
6. Learned counsel further submits that after lapse of several years, a
politically motivated and frivolous complaint came to be filed in the year
2019 alleging irregularities in the allotment process and asserting that
valuable land had been allotted to influential persons and to persons already
possessing sufficient land. Acting upon such complaint, the Tehsildar
initiated proceedings and submitted a report dated 08.08.2019, wherein it was
alleged that preference ought to have been given to persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes whereas the land in question was in
possession of persons belonging to the General and Other Backward Classes
categories. It is vehemently contended that the entire proceedings initiated by
the Tehsildar are without jurisdiction and contrary to law. Learned counsel
submits that it is not even discernible under which statutory provision or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

3 WP-2896-2021
legal authority such proceedings were initiated. It is further submitted that

although replies were submitted on behalf of the petitioners and proceedings
were conducted before the Tehsildar, the entire exercise culminated in a
vague and cryptic report, which was mechanically forwarded to the
Collector.
7. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the Collector, without
conducting any independent inquiry, without examining the original record
pertaining to grant of pattas in the year 2003, and without assigning any
reasons, passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2020 merely recording that
he agrees with the Tehsildar’s report and directing cancellation of pattas and
recording of the land as Government land. It is submitted that the impugned
order is absolutely non-speaking, arbitrary and suffers from complete non-
application of mind. It is further contended that even the Additional Collector
had sought the original record from the office of the Tehsildar, Dabra;
however, no original record was ever produced before the authority
concerned. Despite absence of the foundational record relating to allotment
proceedings of the year 2003, the drastic action of cancellation of pattas has
been undertaken, which itself demonstrates gross illegality and procedural
impropriety.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
respondents have acted in utter disregard of the Government circulars
governing the allotment process and have failed to appreciate that the pattas
were granted pursuant to a valid State policy intended for welfare and
rehabilitation of weaker sections. It is argued that the respondents could not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

4 WP-2896-2021
have cancelled the pattas in a mechanical manner after lapse of such a long

period without conducting a proper inquiry and without affording effective
opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. It is thus submitted that the
impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, violative of
principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law, and therefore the
impugned order dated 24.12.2020 deserves to be quashed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
therespondents/State opposed the petition and submitted that though it is not
disputed that allotment of Beehad land was made vide order dated
06.09.2003, however, the petitioner has failed to place on record all relevant
and necessary documents pertaining to his eligibility and entitlement, and in
absence thereof no adjudication in favour of the petitioner can be made by
this Court. It is submitted that upon receiving complaints regarding large-
scale irregularities in allotment of valuable Government land, the matter was
taken up in suo motu revision and, after detailed inquiry, serious illegalities
were found in the allotment process. Consequently, the competent authority
passed the impugned order declaring the land as Government land, which has
also been duly recorded in the revenue records.
10. Learned counsel further submits that as per the inquiry report dated
08.08.2019 submitted by the Tehsildar, valuable lands situated adjacent to
the highway in Village Chandpur were allotted by a singular order to persons
who were already landholders, financially sound and not residents of the
concerned village. It was also found that the allottees had failed to make the
land cultivable in accordance with the conditions of allotment and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

5 WP-2896-2021
Government circular dated 25.04.2003. It is further contended that the

petitioner has not specifically disputed the findings recorded in the
Tehsildar’s report and has also failed to plead or establish that he fulfilled
theeligibility conditions prescribed under the Government policy at the
relevant point of time. According to learned counsel, there is no material on
record to show that the petitioner was landless, resident of the concerned
village, or in possession of the Beehad land for the requisite period prior to
allotment.
11. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the allotment
proceedings themselves were irregular and contrary to the prescribed
procedure. It is pointed out that there is no proper record to indicate that the
Public Estate Committee had convened any valid meeting or made lawful
recommendations for allotment. The alleged recommendations available on
record do not bear proper dates or signatures and appear to be unsupportedby
official proceedings. It is further submitted that the mandatory requirements
under the circular dated 25.04.2003, including issuance and affixture of
public notices and verification of eligibility conditions, were not duly
complied with. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to produce documentary
evidence regarding residence or fulfillment of the conditions required for
grant and continuation of patta.
12. Learned counsel also argued that under Clause 13 of the
Government circular, the allottee was required to make the allotted land fit
for cultivation within two years from the date of allotment/possession, failing
which the allotment was liable to be cancelled. Since the said conditionswere
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

6 WP-2896-2021
not fulfilled, the competent authority rightly cancelled the pattas. It is lastly

submitted that in an identical set of facts, this Court in the case of Manobai
& Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others passed in W.P.No.26602/2018 vide
order dated 20.11.2019 has already declined interference and dismissed
similar writ petitions. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits
deserves to be dismissed with costs.
13. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. From perusal of the material available on record, it is evident
thatthe impugned order dated 24.12.2020 has been passed by the Collector
solelyon the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 08.08.2019,
without conducting any independent inquiry and without proper
consideration of the relevant material and records pertaining to the original
allotment proceedings of the year 2003.
15. This Court finds that the impugned order merely
recordsconcurrence with the report of the Tehsildar and directs cancellation
of pattasand recording of the land as Government land, without assigning
anyindependent reasons or reflecting due application of mind. Such an
order,which entails serious civil consequences affecting valuable rights
accrued infavour of the petitioner after long lapse of time, could not have
been passedin a mechanical and cursory manner.
16. It is also apparent from the record that even the original allotment
proceedings/files pertaining to the year 2003 were not available before the
authority concerned at the time of passing of the impugned order. Despite
absence of the foundational record, the drastic action of cancellation of pattas
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

7 WP-2896-2021
has been undertaken, which clearly vitiates the decision-making process.

17. This Court is of the considered opinion that if the respondents were
of the view that any illegality or irregularity had been committed in the grant
of pattas or if any complaint regarding such allotment was received, the
authorities were required to proceed strictly in accordance with law by
undertaking a proper inquiry, considering all relevant records and
documents, affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the affected parties
and thereafter passing a reasoned and speaking order.
18. In the present case, the aforesaid procedure has admittedly not
been followed in its true spirit and therefore the impugned action cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
19. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) is hereby
quashed.
20. However, it is made clear that if the respondents intend to take
anyaction on the basis of the complaint or in relation to the allotment/pattas
in question, they shall be at liberty to do so strictly in accordance with law,
after conducting proper inquiry, affording due opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties and by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
21. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM

8 WP-2896-2021
ojha


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:34:51 PM