Sita Saran Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
1 WA-3228-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3228 of 2025
SITA SARAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Pal Singh - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Nilesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General for the State.
Ms. Preeti Pathak, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal, J.
This appeal is filed against the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 40877 of 2025 whereby the appellant writ
petition has been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the
appellant instituted a civil suit on 20.06.1995, which was decreed on
19.09.2007, granting a decree of permanent injunction and directing issuance
of Patta in his favour. The said judgment and decree have attained finality,
and the suit property stands mutated in the appellant's name. despite the
binding civil court decree, respondent No. 6 Sitasharan Sharma initiated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
2 WA-3228-2025
repeated demarcation proceedings through the revenue authorities and sought

demolition of the appellant's property. Appellant also submitted several
representations against the arbitrary actions of respondent No. 6. However,
the revenue authorities continued to act at his instance despite the binding
decree of the Civil Court. Aggrieved by these actions, the appellant filed the
writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition on the ground that the revenue
authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen issues already adjudicated by the
Civil Court. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the rights of
the appellant had already been conclusively determined by a competent Civil
Court and that the revenue authorities could not act contrary to the said
decree. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed in W.P.
No. 40877/2025 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. Hence
this appeal on the following grounds.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was entitled to the
protection of the principles of natural justice and to the issuance of a writ of
prohibition restraining respondents No. 3 to 5 from acting beyond their
jurisdiction and interfering with the appellant's lawful possession of the suit
property. The actions of respondents No. 3 to 5 were wholly without
jurisdiction and amounted to harassment of the appellant.
4. It is submitted that it is well settled that a writ of prohibition is
issued to prevent statutory or administrative authorities from acting without
jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction vested in them. The appellant also
submitted a representation before respondent No. 2 explaining his legal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
3 WA-3228-2025
rights and the binding effect of the judgment and decree passed by the

competent Civil Court, in response to the questions raised by respondent No.
6 in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly). However,
no action was taken on the said representation.
5. The appellant contends that he is the lawful occupant of the
property by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2007, which has
attained finality and protects his possession. Despite the binding civil court
decree, the respondents are illegally attempting to dispossess him and
demolish the property by initiating coercive proceedings, including
registration of an FIR.
6. It is submitted that such actions are arbitrary, without jurisdiction,
and violative of his constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the appellant seeks protection of his
peaceful possession and enforcement of the decree passed by the competent
Civil Court.
7. The respondents contend that the writ appeal is misconceived and
devoid of merit, as the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities are
lawful and within their statutory jurisdiction. It is submitted that the civil
court decree does not bar the authorities from conducting inquiries or
demarcation proceedings in accordance with law. The allegations of
harassment and misuse of power are specifically denied, and it is contended
that no final adverse order has been passed against the appellant.
Accordingly, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition held
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
4 WA-3228-2025
that since the appellant already has a civil court decree in his favour, his

appropriate remedy is to seek its execution in accordance with law. It was
further observed that the appellant failed to produce any material showing
that the authorities had initiated demolition or any coercive action against
him, and his apprehension of dispossession was merely speculative. A liberty
was granted to the appellant to pursue his pending representation before the
competent authorities.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Upon consideration of the submissions and material available on
record, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts
and law involved in the matter.
10. Appellant placed relince on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union
of India, (2024) 1 SCC 185 wherein the Apex court held that the learned
Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo motu case with the title,
“In Re : Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of
criminal cases pending against the Members of Parliament and Legislative
Assemblies. The suo motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided
by the learned Chief Justice or a Bench assigned by them.
11. Appellant placed relince on Vineet Narain v. Union of India,
(1998) 1 SCC 226 wherein the Apex Court held that it is sufficient to say
that the Minister's general power to review the working of the agency and to
give broad policy directions regarding the functioning of the agencies and to
appraise the quality of the work of the head of the agency and other officers
as the executive head is in no way to be diluted. Similarly, the Minister's
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
5 WA-3228-2025
power to call for information generally regarding the cases being handled by

the agencies is not to be taken away. However, all the powers of the Minister
are subject to the condition that none of them would extend to permit the
Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any
individual case and in that respect the officers concerned are to be governed
entirely by the mandate of law and the statutory duty cast upon them.
12. The allegation against respondent No. 6 is that he is the Speaker
of the Legislative Assembly. In response to the dispute, he raised questions
in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly). However, no
action was taken on the said representation. The appellants have a personal
dispute regarding the demarcation of land. Merely because respondent No. 6
is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the dispute cannot be treated as a
State dispute. Therefore, no writ can be issued against a private person.
13. The appellant has relied upon a judicial pronouncement regarding
the monitoring of criminal proceedings pending against MLAs/MPs by the
Chief Justice. However, it does not mean that the said judgment holds that a
writ can be issued against an MLA/MP. Raising a question in the Legislative
Assembly is a purely legislative act performed by a Member of the
Assembly, and no writ can be issued against such an act. Therefore, the
aforesaid judgment does not support the case of the appellant.
14. The dispute with respondent No. 6 is entirely in a private
capacity; therefore, no writ can be issued against respondent No. 6.
Respondents No. 1 to 5 are the competent authorities, and no person can be
deprived of seeking their assistance for the resolution of a dispute. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
6 WA-3228-2025
respondents are duty-bound to take action if anyone approaches them. If any

action is taken without jurisdiction, the same can be challenged in
accordance with law; however, no writ can be issued in anticipation that the
action may be without jurisdiction. The dispute regarding demarcation shall
be raised before the revenue authority. A civil court decree cannot decide the
dispute regarding demarcation, and respondent No. 6 was not a party to the
said decree; therefore, it cannot be said that the decree is binding upon
respondent No. 6. The dispute regarding the property is a civil dispute, which
can be raised before the civil court and not by way of writ jurisdiction.
15. A First Information Report has already been registered against
the appellant, which can be challenged by way of writ jurisdiction under the
Code of Criminal Procedure if he feels that no offence is made out from the
facts recorded in the FIR. However, no writ can be issued to stop the action
on the basis of the said FIR, nor can any direction be issued for non-
registration of the FIR against the appellant.
16. The appellant is already protected by the judgment and decree
dated 19.09.2007 passed by the competent Civil Court. However, no material
has been placed on record to show that any execution proceedings have been
initiated for enforcement of the said decree. The apprehension of the
appellant regarding dispossession or demolition is not supported by any
concrete material, as no notice or adverse order has been issued by the
authorities. The actions of the revenue authorities are only for verification of
facts and do not amount to interference with the civil court decree. The
allegations against Respondent No. 6 are disputed questions of fact and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55429
7 WA-3228-2025
cannot be examined in the present proceedings.

17. Accordingly, we find no error in the order dated 27.10.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 40877/2025. The appeal,
being devoid of merit, is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to pursue his
pending representation before the competent authorities in accordance with
law.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:33:45