Smt. Parvati Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
1 WP-27847-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 27847 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010494472025
SMT. PARVATI BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naveen Kumar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - Advocate for respondent No.5.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 12.07.2024
passed by respondent No.3/Tehsildar Nazul, Bairagarh and the Appellate
order dated 19.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2/ SDO Nazul, Sant
Hirdaram Nagar, Bhopal, whereby, a demarcation report under Section 129
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, has been affirmed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 along with two
others had filed a Civil Suit bearing RCS No. 800630A/2009 against the
present petitioner and her husband as well as State of MP before the Trial
Court for removal of alleged encroachment of the petitioner, recovery of
possession and compensation and others over the suit land i.e. Original
Khasra no. 474/ 1/2, new Khasra no. 472/2, 474/5, and 474/3 area 0.54
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
2 WP-27847-2025
Decimal out of total area 5, 25 acre situated at Village Gondarmau, Tehsil

Huzur, District Bhopal. Trial Court has dismissed the Civil Suit vide
Judgment dated 30.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment
dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court, respondent No.5 and others
preferred an Appeal which has been registered as RCA No.147/2024 before
the First Appellate Court and the same is still pending adjudication.
Respondent No.5 during the pendency of Civil Suit with a malafide intention
had moved an application before the revenue authorities for demarcation and
in collusion with the revenue authorities got prepared demarcation report
behind back of the petitioner. By virtue of aforesaid biased demarcation
report which was prepared behind back of the petitioner, respondent No.5
instead of submitting the same before the Trial Court, moved an application
under Section 250 r/w Section 38 of MPLRC before respondent No.3.
Petitioner had filed her detailed reply, thereby denying all the averments
made in the aforesaid application and further stated in additional pleadings
that the Civil Suit bearing RCS No.800630-A/2009 with respect to the same
land in question instituted by the private respondent No.5 and two others
against petitioner has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Respondent No.3
vide impugned order dated 12.07.2024 has affirmed the demarcation report
dated 18.05.2024, against which petitioner filed an application under Section
129(5) of MPLRC before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 vide
impugned order dated 19.05.2025 has affirmed the order dated 12.07.2024
passed by Tehsildar. Hence this petition.
3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the demarcation was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
3 WP-27847-2025
conducted behind her back without her signature on the spot Panchnama. It

has further been argued that the revenue authorities exceeded their
jurisdiction during the pendency of a Regular Civil Appeal (RCA No.
147/2024) arising out of the dismissal of a subsequent civil suit (RCS No.
800630-A/2009). Therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 12.07.2024
passed by respondent No.3/Tehsildar Nazul, Bairagarh and the Appellate
order dated 19.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 be set aside.
4. On notice being issued, respondent No.5 has filed a reply raising an
objection regarding the deliberate and fraudulent suppression of material
facts by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had previously
instituted a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 1035A/2008 (Smt. Parvati Devi
Vs. Farid Ahmed & others) seeking declaration of title and permanent
injunction with respect to same property. The said suit was dismissed with
cost by the Court of Vth Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal, vide a
detailed Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2011.
5. Petitioner has filed her rejoinder and made an attempt to explain the
omission by asserting that the judgment dated 25/04/2011 was referenced
inside a paragraph of the subsequent judgment of the Trial Court of year
2024, and therefore, it cannot be categorized as suppression.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record, it is clear that earlier a civil suit was
filed by the petitioner being Civil Suit No.1035A/2008 for declaration and
injunction against respondent No.5 and his family. The said suit was
dismissed with cost by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
4 WP-27847-2025
25/04/2011. The said fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court. It

is also pointed out by the respondents' counsel that in the civil suit the Trial
Court based on the demarcation report dated 18/12/2006 filed by the Court
appointed Commissioner gave a categorical finding that the petitioner herself
is an encroacher. Petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of Khasra
No.474/1, area being 0.50 acres of land. This goes to show that the petitioner
has not approached the Court with clean hands. The aforesaid aspects were
duly brought to the notice of the Authorities and they have rightly rejected
the claim of the petitioner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav
v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, reported in (2013) 11
SCC 531 has held as under :-
"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material
for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the
obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case
and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there
is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order
dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not
enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly
disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order
dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained
finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In
Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress
was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or
misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an
appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows:
“9. … It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave care must be taken not to make any
statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading.
In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact
contained in the petitions at their face value and it
would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading.
That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the
present case, special leave granted to the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
5 WP-27847-2025
ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is
revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will
pay the costs of the respondent.”
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of
India [(2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject
was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not
come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled to
be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any
relief from any judicial forum. It was said-
“21. The principle that a person who does not come to
the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on
the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person
is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the
petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the
Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others
courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the
principle is that every court is not only entitled but is
duty-bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants
who do not have any respect for truth and who try to
pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or
by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which
have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in
the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en
passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the
requirement of disclosure. It is not for the court to look
into every word of the pleadings, documents and
annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come
upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on
the basis of the submissions made by the learned
counsel, leave it to the court to determine whether or
not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision.
Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and
must suffer the consequence thereof."
9 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Jayaram vs BDA,

reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has observed as follows :-
"14. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to
check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same
subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace
of soliciting inconsistent orders through different
judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by
remaining silent or by making misleading statements in
the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a
false statement, we are of the view that the parties have
to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and
litigations either past or present concerning any part of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
6 WP-27847-2025
the subject-matter of dispute which is within their
knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the
dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were
or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in
their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between
the parties in accordance with law."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs
Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held that suppression must
be of 'material' fact. It was observed as under :-
"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature
of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a
discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right.
(See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003)
6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State
of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260
: (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance
against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal
thereof. (See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC
259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union
of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)
11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between
the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human
rights concept of access to justice. The same, however,
would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction
to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not
approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to
what extent such relief should be denied is the question.
12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse
to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression
must be of material fact. What would be a material fact,
suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to
obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact
would mean material for the purpose of determination
of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that
whether the same was material for grant or denial of the
relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for
determination of the lis between the parties, the court
may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary
jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach
it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is
removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief
would still be denied is the question."
11. Under these circumstances, as the petitioner has not approached
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88004
7 WP-27847-2025
the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court,

this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
1 2 . Accordingly, the petition is dismissed imposing cost of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on the petitioner for approaching
the Court with unclean hands, to be deposited in the Account of M.P. High
Court Bar Association (SB A/c No.519302010000549, IFSC CODE:
UBIN0551937, Union Bank of India, State Bar Council High Court Branch,
Jabalpur), within a period of 10 working days from today.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24