Shree Kripa Alcobev Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Shri Sagar S/O Shri Jagdish Lakhwani vs State Of M P Through Princpal Secretary Revenue Department

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24514
1 WP-35752-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 35752 of 2026
SHREE KRIPA ALCOBEV PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR SHRI
SAGAR S/O SHRI JAGDISH LAKHWANI
Versus
STATE OF M P THROUGH PRINCPAL SECRETARY REVENUE
DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Shri Vishal Baheti along with Shri Nipun Choudhary,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Singh - GA for the State.
ORDER
Present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs.
a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned | ex-parte
order dated 17.08.2026 passed by Respondent--No:3/Tehsildar, Tehsil Rau, District
Indore, in Case No. 0022/A-68/2025-26, whereby the Petitioners have ‘been
directed to deposit penalty of Rs.25,000/- and remove
the alleged encroachment/hand over possession within seven days;
b) Direct the Respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the
Petitioners over the premises in. question during pendency of the civil proceedings.
c) Direct the Respondent authorities may not take any coercive action. in respect of
the disputed property in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with the subsisting
order passed. by the competent Civil Court;
d) Direct the trial court to expeditiously decide the application filed by the petitioner
under section 151 of CPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:13:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24514
2 WP-35752-2026
e) Costs of this Petition may be awarded,

f) Any other appropriate relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be awarded to
the Petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
predecessor of the property in question has executed lease agreement in
favour of present petitioner. He has also filed a civil suit, which is pending,
whereby the interim order is also passed and is extended from time to time.
He has further submitted that in this background, the Authority / respondent
no. 3 Tehsildar alleging encroachment over government land and calling
upon the petitioner, issued show-cause notice on 11/08/2026, which was
replied on14/08/2026 by the petitioner by submitting the reply to the notice
and also by pointing out the rent and tenancy agreement dated 14/04/2026
and other aspect of pendency of the civil suit is also pointed out. He has
further submitted that though the subject matter of the property is pending,
the Tehsildar has not considered this aspect of pendency of civil proceeding
and by order dated 17/08/2026, respondent / Tehsildar has passed the
impugned ex-parte order in Case no. 0022-A-68/2025-26 directing the
petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as penalty and to remove the alleged
encroachment and hand over the possession of the property in question
within seven days. He has further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner has
filed an application before the Civil Court by drawing attention of the Civil
Court regarding the order passed by the Authority under section 151 of the
CPC for granting appropriate interim protection. That application is still
pending and simultaneously present petition is filed before this Court. He has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:13:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24514
3 WP-35752-2026
further submitted that when the civil suit is pending and interim protection is

granted, the Revenue Authority in summary proceeding cannot take further
action, until the proceeding of the civil suit is set aside and interim relief is
vacated. In support of his submission and also in support of his submission
regarding the scope of section 248 of the MPLRC, he has cited judgment
delivered in the case of Government of Andra Pradesh Vs. Thummala
Krishna Rao and Anr] reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1081 and has
drawn attention of this Court towards the relevant paragraphs of that
judgment and also the judgment delivered in Writ Appeal nos 398/2017 [
Arun Bharti and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others] decided on
27/10/2017 and connected matters, whereby paragraph nos. 7 and 8 are relied
upon. Considering the same, he has further submitted that the impugned
order / notice is required to be interfered as it is without jurisdiction and
against the principle of natural justice and therefore, he prays to grant
indulgence by this Court by also referring to the judgment delivered in the
case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and
Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1
4 . Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ State has opposed
the prayer made by the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court that
there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner by way
of the provision of Section 44 of the MPLRC. He has also drawn attention of
this Court to the fact that the petitioner has also approached the Civil Court
by filing application under section 151 of the CPC in civil suit on
17/08/2026, which is pending for consideration. Moreover, he has submitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:13:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24514
4 WP-35752-2026
that by considering the nature of the dispute, which is subject matter of the

civil suit and the relief, which is granted by the Civil Court, is regarding non-
construction of the property and the proceeding, which is initiated by the
respondent / Tehsildar, is different than the nature of the relief claimed in the
civil suit, more particularly on the ground that there is encroachment over the
government land by the present petitioner and therefore, he has submitted
that the Authority have rightly issued notice on 11/08/2026, thereafter, the
petitioner has also responded by filing reply on 14/08/2026 and the
impugned order is passed on 17/08/2026 by imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-
and by granting seven days' time to vacate the possession over the property
in question, whereupon the encroachment is made by the petitioner.
5. I have considered rival submissions of both the parties and also
considered the contentions of the parties.
6. Prima-facie, the order passed by the respondent / Tehsildar, which
is challenged, is appealable in view of the provisions of the MPLRC.
Moreover, the petitioner assuming that there is some relief of the civil suit on
the subject matter of the present proceeding, considering that the petitioner
has already filed an application under section 151 of the CPC before the
Civil Court pursuant to the order passed by the Tehsildar by placing on
record the order passed by the Tehsildar and by praying appropriate relief.
Moreover, considering the scope of interference by exercising the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope is very limited in
such circumstances, where alternative efficacious remedy is available with
the petitioner. It cannot be said that in the present case, no notice is issued or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:13:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24514
5 WP-35752-2026
no opportunity to respond to the notice is given, therefore, it cannot be said

that in the present case, there is any case, is made out to consider the aspect
of violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, on that count also,
when writ petition is also not required to be entertained, more particularly,
when Competent Revenue Authority has found that the petitioner has
encroached upon government land, the Court should not interfere lightly in
such matter by entertaining petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed in various matters that in the
cases of encroachment over government land, the Court should take serious
view of the matter. On that count also as well as in view of the above
mentioned discussions, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for
interference by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and present petition requires to be dismissed.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
amol

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-09-2026
17:13:54