A petitioner’s admission of encroachment binds him and bars contradictory relief under Article 226.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of land bearing Survey No. 157/2/1 at Village Jhalariya, Tehsil Kanadia, District Indore.

Respondent No. 6 complained that the petitioner had encroached upon adjoining Government land bearing Survey No. 156, reserved for a road.

The Tehsildar, Kanadia, initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, issued notices, and directed a Patwari to inspect the site and submit a report.

The petition challenged orders dated 16 August 2024, 11 December 2024, and 21 April 2025, seeking their quashing.

Whether the orders directing removal of the alleged encroachment on Government land bearing Survey No. 156 were arbitrary, illegal, or otherwise liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner’s assertions regarding construction of a road over his private land negated or justified his admitted encroachment upon Government land.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which interference with administrative or quasi-judicial orders is warranted only where there is illegality, arbitrariness, perversity, procedural impropriety, or violation of natural justice.

It also considered Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, governing proceedings concerning encroachment upon Government land.

The Court applied the principle that a party’s clear admission is binding and may estop that party from subsequently taking a contradictory position.

It further held that the principles of natural justice are not violated where the affected person had notice, participated in the inspection or proceedings, and had an opportunity to place his case before the authority.

The Court found that the petitioner had participated in the preparation of the spot panchanama, appeared before the Patwari and Tehsildar, and was represented in the proceedings.

Accordingly, his contention that no opportunity of hearing was granted was rejected.

The Court treated the petitioner’s pleadings and statements regarding the use of land in Survey No. 156 and the construction of the road as an admission of encroachment.

The fact that a portion of the road had allegedly been constructed over Survey No. 157, even if accepted, did not authorise the petitioner to occupy or use Government land in Survey No. 156 for private purposes.

Since the authorities had acted on the Patwari’s report and the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, the Court found no arbitrariness, illegality, perversity, or procedural impropriety warranting intervention under Article 226.

It held that the petitioner had admitted encroachment upon Government land bearing Survey No. 156 and had been afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings; therefore, the principles of natural justice were not violated.

Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to quash the orders dated 16 August 2024, 11 December 2024, and 21 April 2025.