Raghuveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
1 WP-3385-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 24 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3385 of 2017
RAGHUVEER SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Smariti Sharma - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"i)- Impugned notice Annexure-P/1 may kindly be
quashed.
ii) The note put up in Khasra, being violative of
principles of Natural Justice and also being without
Jurisdiction, deserves to be declared illegal and void.
iii) The concerning record keeper putting up the such
notes, on mere saying, deserves to be punished for doing
such act without any authority of law.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be
granted to the petitioner."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
2 WP-3385-2017
Short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the

petitioners are the recorded Bhumiswamis and are in peaceful possession of
the land situated at Village Alapur, District Gwalior. The ownership and
possession of the petitioners over the land in question are duly reflected in
the revenue records, including the Khasra entries, which have continued in
favour of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest for several
decades. The petitioners have been cultivating and using the land as owners
without any interruption from any authority. On 30.01.2017, a report was
prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari alleging that
the petitioners had encroached upon Survey No.90 ad-measuring 3500
square feet and had illegally diverted the said land without obtaining
permission from the competent authority. On the basis of the said report,
proceedings under Section 172(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 were initiated against the petitioners. Pursuant to the notice
issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners appeared before the
concerned authority and submitted a detailed reply specifically disputing the
allegations contained in the report. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Jhansi Road, Gwalior passed an order dated 17.05.2017 holding
that the petitioners had illegally diverted the land and imposed a penalty of
Rs.10,40,892/- under Section 172(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959. The said order further directed restoration of the land to its
original condition and also directed initiation of separate proceedings under
Section 248 of the Code for alleged encroachment. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
3 WP-3385-2017
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire action of the

respondent authority is founded upon a complete misapplication of Section
172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as the jurisdiction
under Section 172 can be exercised only when a person holding land as a
Bhumiswami or a person acting through or under such Bhumiswami diverts
the use of land without obtaining permission from the competent authority
and the very scheme of Section 172 proceeds on the assumption that the land
sought to be diverted belongs to the holder and such holder possesses a
legally recognizable right in the land. Therefore, the existence of lawful
holding is a foundational jurisdictional fact for invoking Section 172. In the
present case, the respondents themselves have alleged that the petitioners are
encroachers upon Government land. Once the respondents proceeded on the
premise that the land is Government land and the petitioners are unauthorized
occupants, the provisions of Section 172 cease to have any application. An
encroacher cannot be treated as a Bhumiswami for the purpose of Section
172 and consequently, no proceedings for unauthorized diversion can be
initiated against such person under the said provision. The impugned order
therefore suffers from a patent contradiction. On one hand, the respondents
have declared the petitioners to be encroachers and on the other hand have
imposed penalty under Section 172 which is applicable only to a lawful
holder of land. Such mutually destructive findings strike at the very root of
jurisdiction and render the entire proceedings void ab initio.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authority failed to
appreciate that proceedings for removal of encroachment and proceedings for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
4 WP-3385-2017
diversion of land operate in entirely different fields, as encroachment

proceedings are governed by separate provisions of the Code, including
Section 248, whereas Section 172 deals with unauthorized diversion of land
by a person having lawful rights in the property. The legislature has
consciously maintained a distinction between the two situations. The
respondents, however, have merged these distinct jurisdictions and thereby
exercised powers not vested in them by law. The exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 172 in a case where the authority itself alleges encroachment
amounts to a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record.
It is further submitted that before imposing penalty under Section
172(4), the authority is required to arrive at a clear and reasoned finding that
the land in question was liable to diversion permission under the Code and
the person proceeded against was responsible for such diversion. Neither of
these conditions has been satisfied in the present case. The impugned order
does not contain any finding regarding the legal status of the petitioners as
holders of the land. Nor does it disclose any analysis of the revenue records
or documentary evidence establishing that the petitioners were required to
obtain diversion permission. In the absence of such foundational findings,
the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 172 is wholly illegal.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners specifically relied
upon revenue entries showing their rights over the land and the respondents
failed to examine the historical revenue records and failed to determine
whether the petitioners or their predecessors had acquired rights over the
land under the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
5 WP-3385-2017
Act, Zamindari Abolition enactments, or the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue

Code. The impugned order proceeds merely on the basis of a report
submitted by subordinate revenue officials without undertaking any
independent adjudication regarding title, possession or lawful holding. Such
mechanical exercise of power cannot be sustained in law.
It is further submitted that Section 172(4) authorizes imposition of
penalty equivalent to a percentage of the market value of the diverted land
and such power is penal in nature and therefore has to be exercised strictly in
accordance with the statute. Before imposing such a substantial monetary
liability, the authority was under an obligation to conduct a fair inquiry,
supply all relevant material to the petitioners, grant effective opportunity of
hearing and record reasons dealing with the objections raised by them. The
record itself demonstrates that after submission of the reply by the
petitioners, no meaningful opportunity was afforded and the proceedings
culminated in the impugned order without consideration of the objections.
Consequently, the mandatory requirements of natural justice stand violated.
Learned counsel further submits that the assessment of market value
and consequent penalty has also been undertaken arbitrarily, as the authority
merely adopted the report of the Superintendent of Land Records and
proceeded to impose penalty without first determining whether Section 172
was at all applicable. Once the very jurisdiction under Section 172 is absent,
the consequential determination of market value and imposition of penalty
automatically fall to the ground. A penalty imposed without jurisdiction is a
nullity and cannot be sustained merely because a calculation has been made
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
6 WP-3385-2017
by the authority.

It is further submitted that the impugned order affects valuable
property rights of the petitioners and imposes a substantial financial burden
upon them. Such consequences could not have been visited upon the
petitioners without strict adherence to statutory requirements. Any action
affecting property rights must be supported by clear authority of law, which
is conspicuously absent in the present case. It is thus submitted that the
impugned proceedings under Section 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 are wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to the
statutory scheme of the Code, violative of the principles of natural justice
and unsustainable in law. The impugned order, the consequential penalty
imposed thereunder and all subsequent actions founded upon the said order
deserve to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents/State submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and
deserves to be dismissed, as the land in question bearing Survey No.90 has
throughout been recorded as Nazul Pahad/Government land in the revenue
records and the petitioners have no lawful title, right or interest over the said
property.
It is further submitted that during departmental verification, serious
discrepancies and manipulation were found in the revenue entries relied upon
by the petitioners. Consequently, appropriate notes were entered in the
Khasra records indicating such manipulation. The petitioners cannot derive
any benefit from entries which are themselves under serious cloud and are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
7 WP-3385-2017
subject to scrutiny by the revenue authorities.

It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 17.05.2017 was
passed on the basis of reports submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Patwari
and other competent revenue officials and the material collected during spot
inspection revealed unauthorized occupation and construction over
Government land. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated under Section 172
of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and directions were also issued
for initiation of proceedings under Section 248 of the Code.
It is also argued that the petitioners are reading the order in isolation
and a holistic reading of the order clearly demonstrates that the competent
authority treated the land as Government land and simultaneously directed
initiation of encroachment proceedings under Section 248 of the MPLRC.
Therefore, no inference can be drawn that the respondents ever recognized
any ownership rights of the petitioners over the disputed land.
It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present petition
and under the protection of the interim order granted by this Court, the
petitioners have raised substantial construction over the disputed property.
The interim protection granted by this Court did not authorize the petitioners
to alter the nature of the property or undertake fresh construction activities.
The conduct of the petitioners demonstrates an attempt to create equities
over valuable Government land during the pendency of the proceedings. The
petitioners have failed to establish any valid title over the land in question.
Mere reliance upon disputed revenue entries cannot confer ownership over
Government land. Questions relating to title and correctness of revenue
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
8 WP-3385-2017
entries require examination by the competent revenue authorities in

accordance with law. It is thus submitted that no case for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out and therefore, the present
petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed with liberty to the
State authorities to proceed in accordance with law for protection of
Government land and removal of encroachment.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the
foundation of the impugned proceedings is inherently self-contradictory. On
one hand, the respondents have consistently maintained that the land in
question is Government land recorded as Nazul Pahad and the petitioners are
encroachers thereupon. On the other hand, proceedings under Section 172 of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 have been initiated and
penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners for alleged unauthorized
diversion of land. The very scheme of Section 172 proceeds on the premise
that the person proceeded against possesses a legally recognizable interest in
the land and has diverted the use of such land without obtaining permission
from the competent authority. The provision does not contemplate its
application against a person, who is simultaneously alleged to be an
encroacher upon Government land.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents could not
have adopted mutually destructive stands in the same proceedings. If the land
was Government land under unauthorized occupation, the remedy available
to the authorities was to proceed in accordance with the provisions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
9 WP-3385-2017
governing removal of encroachment, including Section 248 of the Code.

Conversely, if proceedings under Section 172 were invoked, the authority
was required to first establish the foundational facts necessary for exercise of
jurisdiction under the said provision. The impugned order fails to satisfy
either requirement and therefore suffers from a patent jurisdictional infirmity.
This Court further finds that the authority while passing the impugned
order failed to record any cogent finding regarding the legal status of the
petitioners, the nature of their rights over the land, or the basis upon which
Section 172 was held to be attracted. The objections submitted by the
petitioners have not been adequately considered and the order does not
disclose any reasoned analysis of the material placed before the authority.
The record further reveals that adverse consequences affecting the
proprietary and possessory rights of the petitioners have been visited upon
them without adherence to the principles of natural justice. It is well settled
that every administrative action having civil consequences must satisfy the
requirements of fairness, transparency and reasoned decision making. The
respondents have failed to demonstrate compliance with these fundamental
safeguards.
This Court is also unable to accept the contention of the respondents
that initiation of proceedings under Section 172 and simultaneous treatment
of the petitioners as encroachers can be justified by reading the impugned
order as a whole. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by implication where the
statutory prerequisites for exercise of power are absent. The authority having
exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, the resultant order stands
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:18118
10 WP-3385-2017
vitiated.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is satisfied that the
impugned order dated 17.05.2017 has been passed in excess of jurisdiction,
and upon a fundamentally erroneous understanding of Section 172 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The same, therefore, deserves
to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned order/notice dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. It is,
however, made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the question of
title of the parties. The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate and pursue
such proceedings as may be available to them under the applicable
provisions of law, including proceedings relating to title, correction of
revenue records or removal of encroachment, if so advised, strictly in
accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to all
affected parties.
The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 6/29/2026
10:51:40 AM