Suresh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26566
1 WP-34526-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 34526 of 2026
SURESH RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak, learned GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue an appropriate writ of Mandamus, directing the
Respondent Authorities to forthwith provide to the
Petitioner the certified copies of the complete records
relating to Case No. 0209/a-12/2024-25, 0002/a-
12/2022-23 and 0008/a-70/2024-25 pertaining to the
proceedings under Section 129 and 250 of the MPLRC,
1959, and all other documents forming part of the
case record.
(ii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to decide and
dispose of the Petitioner's pending application and
statutory appeals preferred under the provisions of the
Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee
Adhiniyam, 2010.
(iii) Direct the Respondent no.2 to initiate appropriate
proceedings for imposition of penalty upon the
defaulting Respondent Authorities in accordance with
the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke
Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010, and further be
pleased to award such compensation in favour of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26566
2 WP-34526-2026
Petitioner for the loss, prejudice and hardship suffered
on account of the arbitrary, illegal and deliberate
inaction of the Respondent Authorities, as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and
circumstances of the present case.
(iv) Award the costs of the present writ petition in
favour of the Petitioner.
(v) Pass such other or further order(s), direction(s) or
relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, in the interest of justice.

02. The dispute arises from the fact that the petitioner claims himself
to be the owner/Bhumiswami of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 715,
situated at Village Sajai, Tehsil Rannod, District Shivpuri, admeasuring
0.300 hectares. The petitioner alleges that he is being harassed by one Rajua
Nai, who is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 717, adjoining the land of
the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that the aforesaid person has
illegally encroached upon the Government land bearing Survey No. 714 as
well as the petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 715. The petitioner,
therefore, submitted an application under Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh
Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking demarcation of land bearing Survey No.
715 on 29.11.2021, pursuant to which Case No. 0002/A-12/2022-23 was
registered.
03. A team of revenue officials including Patwari visited the spot on
11.12.2022, however, they refused to carry out the demarcation by arbitrarily
ascertain that the petitioner is not the owner of land of survey No. 715. In
such circumstances, the petitioner again submitted an application on
07.01.2024 seeking demarcation of the said land. Pursuant thereto, Case No.
0209/A-12/2024-25 was registered, and eventually, the demarcation was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26566
3 WP-34526-2026
carried out on 24.07.2024. However, according to the petitioner, within a few

days thereafter, i.e., on 28.07.2024, the aforesaid Rajua again illegally
encroached upon the petitioner's land in collusion with the Patwari. The
petitioner, therefore, again approached the concerned Tehsildar on
30.07.2024 and simultaneously filed an application under Section 250 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking restoration of
possession as a Bhumiswami. Pursuant to the said application, Case No.
0008/A-70/2024-25 was registered on 16.08.2024.
04. The petitioner in order to substantiate his case and to protect his
legal rights submitted an application on 28.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 for
supply of certified copy of the relevant records in terms of Section 4 of Lok
Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010 (hereinafter referred for
short 'Act of 2010'). The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the lapse
of statutory period provided under this Act, the certified copies of the
documents sought for was not provided. Thus, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 6 of the Act of 2010.
However, the Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal of the
petitioner, thus the petitioner filed second appeal against the inaction of the
Appellate Authority. However, even the Second Appellate Authority did not
decide the appeal of the petitioner. The inaction as mentioned above entailed
the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present petition. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the inaction on the part of the
respondents on both counts, i.e., in not taking action on the application
submitted by the petitioner under Section 250 of the MPLRC and in not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26566
4 WP-34526-2026
providing certified copies of the documents sought by him under Section 4 of

the Act of 2010, is not only arbitrary but also in breach of the clear statutory
mandate contained in the Act of 2010. It is, therefore, contended that the
respondents have rendered themselves liable to pay compensation as
provided under the said Act. He thus submits that appropriate direction for
providing certified copy and for concluding the proceedings under Section
250 of MPLRC deserves to be issued to the respondents. The learned
counsel also submits that the petitioner is also entitled for compensation in
terms of the Act of 2010.
05. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that, at this stage,
it cannot be concluded that the authorities have failed to provide the
documents or have acted contrary to law, as the reasons for seeking certified
copies of the documents by the petitioner are not clear. It is further submitted
that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is yet to be decided by the
competent authority. Thus, the present petition appears to be premature and,
at this stage, deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
06. Considering that the second appeal filed by the petitioner is still
pending before the respondent No. 2 - Collector, the present petition is
disposed of with the following directions:-

(a) It is directed that the Collector shall decide the
second appeal of the petitioner within an outer limit of
two months from the date of communication of this
order.
(b) The issue with respect to the entitlement of the
compensation for not providing the certified copies
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26566
5 WP-34526-2026
within the stipulated period shall also be decided by the
Collector while disposing of the second appeal of the
petitioner.

07. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
soumya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:03:19 PM