Mangu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31312
1 WA-3037-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3037 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020336492026
MANGU SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Mohan Lal Patidar, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Pradyumna Kibe, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5/State.
Mr. Ravindra Singh Chhabra, senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aman Arora,
counsel for the respondent No.6.

ORDER
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai
(1) The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against
the order dated 14/08/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
18860 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition and upheld the orders of the revenue authorities directing the removal of
the appellant's encroachment from government land. The broad issue involved in
this appeal is whether the revenue authorities passed the order for removal of
encroachment without following the principles of natural justice and whether the
learned Single Judge committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.
Facts of the Case
(2) The appellant is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 157/2/1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
6:01:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31312
2 WA-3037-2026
situated at Village Jhalaria, Tehsil Kanadiya, District Indore. Respondent No. 6

(M/s Excellent Infabuild) is developing a colony named "Palm Exotica" on nearby
land bearing Survey Nos. 151/2 and 152. A government road is situated on Survey
No. 156, which lies on the southern side of the land owned by Respondent No. 6.
On 02/08/2023, Respondent No. 6 filed a complaint before the Tehsildar,
Kanadiya, stating that the appellant and his brother Shankar Singh had encroached
upon the government land (Survey No. 156), which obstructed the 18-meter
approach road.
(3) Acting on the complaint, the Tehsildar registered a case under Section 248 of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Notices were issued, and the local
Patwari inspected the spot. The Patwari submitted a report on 12/08/2024 stating
that the appellant had kept tent accessories on the government land. During the
proceedings, Shankar Singh (brother of the appellant) filed a reply. On 16/08/2024,
the Tehsildar passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and directed the
removal of the encroachment within seven days.
(4) The appellant previously filed Writ Petition No. 25164 of 2024 against the
Tehsildar's order. This Court disposed of the petition on 30/08/2024, granting
liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the competent authority. Thereafter,
the appellant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Kanadiya, which was dismissed on 11/12/2024. The appellant then filed a revision
petition before the Additional Collector, Indore, which was also dismissed on
21/04/2025. Against these orders, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 18860 of
2025, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
(5) In the writ petition, the appellant mainly argued that the notice was issued to
his brother Shankar Singh and not to him. He claimed that the order of the
Tehsildar was passed without giving him a proper hearing. Respondent No. 6 and
the State opposed the petition. They stated that the appellant and his brother lived
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
6:01:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31312
3 WA-3037-2026
together, the appellant was present during the spot inspection, and he had admitted

to the encroachment.
(6) The learned Single Judge considered the record and found that the appellant
had admitted to encroaching upon Survey No. 156. The Court also noted that some
land from the appellant's Survey No. 157 was earlier used for road construction,
for which he had already received compensation. The learned Single Judge held
that the appellant was present during the preparation of the panchnama and had full
knowledge of the proceedings. Therefore, the Court concluded that the principles
of natural justice were not violated and dismissed the writ petition.
Contentions of Appellant
(7) Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tehsildar passed the order dated
16/08/2024 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is
submitted that the complaint was filed against Shankar Singh, and the notice was
also issued in the name of Shankar Singh. Learned counsel further submits that the
appellant's valuable property rights are involved. Passing an order of eviction and
penalty without serving a formal notice on the appellant is a direct violation of law.
It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge wrongly assumed facts regarding
the receipt of compensation. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated
14/08/2026 and the orders of the revenue authorities be set aside.
Contentions of Respondents
(8) Per contra, counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 submits that the order of
the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal. It is submitted that the appellant and
Shankar Singh are brothers living in the same premises. The appellant was present
on the spot when the Patwari conducted the inspection and prepared the report.
Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order. It is submitted that
three revenue authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the
appellant regarding the encroachment on the public road. It is further submitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
6:01:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31312
4 WA-3037-2026
that a person encroaching on a government road cannot claim equitable relief under

Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when he had full knowledge of the
proceedings. They pray for the dismissal of the appeal.
Analysis and Findings
(9) We have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
(10) The main argument of the appellant is that he was not given a notice and was
not heard by the Tehsildar. This Court has considered this submission. The record
shows that the appellant and his brother Shankar Singh reside together. When the
Tehsildar directed the Patwari to conduct a spot inspection, the appellant was
physically present at the site. The Patwari report dated 12/08/2024 clearly
mentions the presence and statements of the appellant.
(11) Furthermore, the reply filed by the appellant's brother before the Tehsildar
clearly discussed the appellant's land and the road constructed over it. It is clear
that the appellant had full knowledge of the proceedings. The purpose of a notice is
to give information about the case. When a party has actual knowledge of the
proceedings, participates in the spot inspection, and his own family member files a
reply defending their joint possession, he cannot later complain that a formal notice
was not in his name.
(12) The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect in detail. The Court
noted that the appellant admitted the use of government land for his personal
purposes. The record also indicates that the appellant had received compensation
when a part of his private land was taken to straighten the road. After taking
compensation, the appellant has no legal right to occupy the government land
bearing Survey No. 156.
(13) No error is found in the aforesaid reasoning of the learned Single Judge.
Three revenue authorities, namely the Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, and
the Additional Collector, have examined the facts and concluded that the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
6:01:18 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31312
5 WA-3037-2026
is an encroacher on a public road. These are findings of fact based on the spot

inspection report and the revenue records. The appellant has failed to show any
error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court.
(14) This Court finds that the learned Single Judge correctly appreciated the facts
and the law. The principles of natural justice were not violated in the facts of the
present case. The appellant had sufficient knowledge and opportunity to present
his case. The government land meant for a public road cannot be allowed to be
encroached upon. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any ground warranting
interference in the intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
(15) In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out for interference
with the order dated 14/08/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 18860 of 2025.
(16) The present Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Arun/PS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 11/4/2026
6:01:18 PM