Kamlesh Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
1 WP-20442-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
nd
ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 20442 of 2016
KAMLESH SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Sekhar, Senior Advocate along with Shri Samresh Katare,
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Varun Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Deepak Awasthi, Advocate for the intervener.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, and this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to quash the order 18/10/2016 (Annex.P/18).
(ii) To issue a writ in nature of mandamus to the authorities
concerned to confer the status of 'bhoomi swami' upon the petitioner
regarding the land in question looking into the merits of the case.
(iii) Any other relief / reliefs order / orders, direction / directions
which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may kindly be
granted to the petitioner including the cost of petition."
2. The facts, as set out in the petition, are that the petitioners purchased a
plot situated at Ambedkar Ward No. 11, Mohalla Vishvakarma, Kasba, Udaipura
District Raisen, admeasuring 44.50 x 12 = 534 sq.ft, for a sale consideration of
Rs. 2,29,000/- through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, on 04.06.2012, a
complaint was submitted by two local residents, namely Vivek Chakradhar and
Shri Ram Kumar Srivastava, alleging that the land purchased by the present
petitioners was, in fact, Government land and was being utilized for "Nistar"
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
2 WP-20442-2016
purposes. It was further alleged that, despite the same, the petitioners were

attempting to encroach upon the said land.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the Collector, Raisen directed that an
inquiry be conducted. In compliance thereof, the Tehsildar, Udaipura, District
Raisen conducted an inquiry and submitted his report, which is filed as Annexure
P/7, before the Collector. Upon consideration of the inquiry report, as contained in
Annexure P/9, the Collector (Nazul), Raisen, vide order dated 14.12.2012
(Annexure-P/10), closed the proceedings and rejected the complaint.
4. The order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Collector was challenged by
Shri Vivek Chakradhar and Ram Kumar Srivastava by preferring an appeal before
the Commissioner, Division Bhopal. The Commissioner, Division Bhopal, vide
order dated 13-06-2013 (Annexure P/12), dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter,
the intervener, Shri Mukesh Dhakad, filed a Public Interest Litigation vide W.P.
No.18915/2013 (PIL), wherein a prayer was made that respondent No.1, i.e. the
State Government, be directed to take appropriate action against all the officers
and employees who had abetted respondent Nos.7 to 12 in the sale and purchase
of the Government land. A further prayer was made for quashment of the sale deed
executed in favour of the present petitioners.
5. The aforesaid Public Interest Litigation came up for consideration before
this Court on 24.09.2014. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Taking note of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reply filed by the State, the Division
Bench disposed of the Public Interest Litigation with a direction to the Collector,
Raisen, to ensure that the legal process already initiated for removal of the
encroachment was carried forward expeditiously by the competent authorities.
6. Since the present petitioners were not heard at the time of passing of the
aforesaid order by the Division Bench, they preferred a review petition before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
3 WP-20442-2016
Division Bench. The Division Bench disposed of the review petition observing

that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and had merely
issued an innocuous direction to the Collector to complete the process
expeditiously in accordance with law, which necessarily contemplated affording a
fair opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Thereafter, the Collector, Raisen, vide
the impugned order dated 18-10-2016 (Annexure-P/18), concluded that the land
purchased by the petitioners was, in fact, Government land and that the petitioners
were liable to be dispossessed in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
order passed by the Collector, Raisen, suffers from complete non-application of
mind. It is contended that the Collector has acted in a high-handed manner while
passing the impugned order and has failed to properly appreciate the order passed
by the Division Bench. It is further submitted that the Division Bench had not
issued any direction for removal of the encroachment on the premise that the land
was Government land. On the contrary, while disposing of the review petition, the
Division Bench specifically clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the matter and had merely directed the Collector to complete the process
in accordance with law.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
aforesaid clarification issued by the Division Bench was completely overlooked
by the Collector. It is contended that, in the concluding paragraph of the impugned
order, the Collector erroneously observed that the land belonged to the State
Government, although no such finding had ever been recorded by the Division
Bench while disposing of the Public Interest Litigation. It is further submitted that
the original orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner had attained
finality in the absence of any further challenge and had thus become conclusive.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
4 WP-20442-2016
Consequently, the Collector, by recording findings contrary to those returned by

the then Collector earlier, virtually reviewed the order, which was wholly
impermissible. It is urged that the original order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the
Collector had already been challenged before the Commissioner, who dismissed
the appeal vide order contained in Annexure-P/12 dated 13-06-2013. Therefore,
once the appellate authority had affirmed the order of the Collector, the subsequent
order passed by the Collector in complete disregard of his earlier order amounts to
quasi-judicial indiscipline. On these grounds, learned senior counsel submits that
the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the report
of the Tehsildar, which constituted the basis for passing the order dated
14.12.2012 (Annexure-P/10), was never questioned or challenged by any of the
authorities. It is further contended that even the reply filed by the respondents in
the Public Interest Litigation failed to take into consideration the fact that the order
passed by the Collector had already been affirmed by the Commissioner, who had
dismissed the appeal preferred against the said order.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the
intervener opposed the petition and submitted that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reply
filed in the Public Interest Litigation clearly stated that the land did not belong to
the present petitioners. It is contended that on the date the land vested in the
Municipality, it was treated as "Nazul" land and, therefore, its alienation was
legally impermissible. It is further submitted that the report submitted by the
Tehsildar was contrary to law and had been prepared in complete disregard of the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Sindh Mahajan Exchange Limited vs.
State of M.P. and others, 1980 JLJ 581.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
5 WP-20442-2016
11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that Annexure R-2

filed along with the reply clearly demonstrates that, in due compliance with the
order passed by the Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigation, the Tehsildar
had reported that the land was an open land and stood recorded as Government
land in the revenue records. It is further stated that, accordingly, possession of the
said land was taken over in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench. On
the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
12. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it
appears that the present case is one where the Collector has passed two orders on
different occasions, which are contrary to each other. Initially, upon a complaint
being submitted by the complainant, the Collector directed that an inquiry be
conducted. The inquiry report, dated 22.11.2012, is contained in Annexure P/9.
Upon consideration of the said inquiry report, the Collector, vide order dated
14.12.2012, concluded that the land in question was not Government land and had
been validly purchased by the present petitioners. Accordingly, the Collector
closed the proceedings and dismissed the complaint.
13. The order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Collector was challenged
before the Commissioner, who also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, in the
subsequent Public Interest Litigation, although the intervener referred to the orders
passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner in paragraphs 6.13 and 6.14
of the memorandum of petition, but the prayer clause of the Public Interest
Litigation clearly demonstrates that no relief was sought for quashment of the
aforesaid orders. The prayer incorporated in the Public Interest Litigation is
reproduced herein:
"1. issue an appropriate order/direction directing. respondent no.1 to
take appropriate action against all those officers/employees who have
aided and abetted respondent no. 7 to 12 in selling/purchasing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
6 WP-20442-2016
government land.
2. Issue an appropriate writ setting aside the sale deeds annexure p-3.
3. any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and expedient
under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in the
interest of justice."

A perusal of the aforesaid prayer clause makes it evident that the intervener
was fully aware of the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner.
The factum of passing of the said orders was also disclosed in paragraphs 6.17 and
6.18 of the Public Interest Litigation; however, no challenge thereto was made in
the prayer clause. Ultimately, the Public Interest Litigation was disposed of by the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2014, whereby a direction
was issued to the Collector, Raisen, to ensure that the legal process already
initiated for removal of the encroachment was carried forward expeditiously.
14. The aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench were based on
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reply filed by the respondents. Subsequently, when the
present petitioners sought review of the order passed by the Division Bench, the
Division Bench clarified that it had not adjudicated any issue on the merits of the
matter. The order passed by the Division Bench in the review petition is
reproduced herein:
"R.P. No.39/2015:
Review petition is taken up for admission forthwith by consent.
This review petition is directed against order dated 24th September,
2014 passed in W.P. No.18915/2013. That order, in our opinion, is a
benign order merely directing the Collector to complete the legal
process with regard to encroachments on stated lands already
commenced by the Collector within the prescribed time. The Court has
not decided any issue on the merits of the controversy. Moreover, the
Court has directed the Collector to complete the process expeditiously
in accordance with law which means by giving fair opportunity to all
concerned.
If the review petitioner is aggrieved by any procedural lapse
committed by the Collector or for that matter in the conclusion that he
may reach, will be free to question the same by way of appropriate
proceedings. For that, it is not necessary to review the order under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
7 WP-20442-2016
consideration.
Review petition disposed of leaving all questions on merits of the
controversy open."

A reading of the opening paragraph of the aforesaid order leaves no manner
of doubt that the Division Bench, in unequivocal terms, held that it had not
rendered any decision on the merits of the matter. However, while passing the
impugned order dated 18.10.2016, the Collector ultimately directed removal of the
alleged encroachment. In doing so, the Collector proceeded on the premise that
the Division Bench had held the land in question to be Government land. The
penultimate paragraph of the order passed by the Collector is reproduced herein:
"5.2 ,
उपरो  ववेचन करण म  तुत सम  अिभलेख के सू म पर ण

उपरांत प !क मा० उ #च $यायालय जबलपुर (दारा उनके *रट पटशन
18915/2013 ( ) 24.9.2014
कमॉक पीआईएल म  पा *रत आदेश !दनॉक से उ 

ववा!दत आवासीय भूखंडो को शासक 3य आबाद  देह क 3 भूिम पर 5थत होना
, /
मा $य !कया गया है मा० $यायालय के आदेशानुसार ववा!दत 9गत भूिम
31. 1.2015
से अितकमण हटाया जाकर पालन ितवेदन !दनॉक के पूव : मा०

उ #च $यायालय के सम  तुत !कया जा चुका है। मा. उ #च $यायालय

जबलपुर (दारा पा *रत आदेश व विध व 5ण:त ावधानो के अनुसार

आवेदकगण क 3 ओर से तुत आवेदन प ? पर अ $य कोई िनण :य िलया जाना

विध मंशा के अनु @प नह  है। अतएवं आवेदकगण (दारा तुत आवेदन प ?
"
विधक बलह न होने से अमा $य !कया जाता है।
15. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly indicates that the Collector proceeded
under the mistaken impression that the Division Bench had held the land in
question to be Government land and had, accordingly, directed removal of the
encroachment therefrom. The Collector failed to appreciate that the Division
Bench had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter while disposing
of the Public Interest Litigation. This position was subsequently clarified by the
Division Bench while disposing of the review petition preferred by the present
petitioners.
16. Neither in the original order nor in the order passed in the review
petition did the Division Bench record any finding that the land in question was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54757
8 WP-20442-2016
Government land. No such conclusion can be discerned from either of the orders

passed by the Division Bench. It is, therefore, apparent that the Collector, acting
under a misconception, proceeded to pass the impugned order. The Collector
ought to have taken into consideration that the earlier order dated 14.12.2012
passed by the then Collector, as affirmed by the Commissioner, had already
attained finality, as neither the intervener nor the original complainant had
challenged the same.
17. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge, the aforesaid order having
attained finality and become conclusive, the Collector had no occasion to record
findings contrary thereto, particularly when the Division Bench, while disposing
of the Public Interest Litigation, had not rendered any finding on the merits of the
matter. The Collector ought to have borne in mind that the order passed by the
Commissioner, being that of the appellate authority, was binding upon him. In the
event the Collector intended to take a contrary view, the proper course would have
been to seek appropriate clarification from this Court. However, no such
endeavour is discernible from the record of the present case.
18. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
order dated 18-10-2016 (Annexure-P/18) passed by the Collector, Raisen, is a
nullity and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 18-10-2016 (Annexure-P/18) is hereby quashed.
19. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 24-07-2026
14:38:38