Claims of title based on adverse possession require adjudication by a civil court, not writ jurisdiction.

The petitioners challenged the Tehsildar, Sheopur’s order dated 10.02.2025 in Case No. No./Prava/Teh/2025/945, directing the Halka Patwari to implement the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 06.10.1982 by correcting the revenue records relating to Survey No. 633, measuring 26.188 hectares, situated at Village Nagda, Sheopur.

The petitioners claimed that agricultural leases over the land had been granted to them pursuant to the Tehsildar, Morena’s order dated 21.04.1980 and that they had remained in continuous possession and cultivation for more than four decades.

Although the Additional Commissioner subsequently cancelled the leases in suo motu revision on 06.10.1982, that order was allegedly not implemented in the revenue records for over four decades, during which the petitioners continued in possession.

They contended that the belated implementation of the 1982 order, without enquiry or consideration of their long-standing possession, violated natural justice and their rights under Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution.

The State argued that the 1982 order had attained finality and that any claim based on title, long possession, or adverse possession had to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, could adjudicate the petitioners’ disputed claims concerning possession, title, and acquisition of rights by adverse possession.

Whether the Tehsildar’s belated direction to implement the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 06.10.1982 warranted interference on the basis of the petitioners’ alleged long-standing possession and continued revenue entries.

Whether the petitioners should be granted limited protection to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their alleged rights.

Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily unsuitable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact and title requiring examination of evidence, particularly claims founded on adverse possession.

A claim of adverse possession is essentially a claim to title and requires determination of foundational facts relating to the nature, continuity, publicity, and legal character of possession.

Questions concerning declaration of title or rights in immovable property should ordinarily be pursued before the competent Civil Court.

The Court also considered the constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 300-A, but held that the asserted rights could not be conclusively determined in the writ proceedings.

The Court found that the petitioners’ claim depended principally on their alleged continuous possession for more than four decades and the continued existence of favourable revenue entries after the leases had been cancelled in 1982.

Determining whether such possession had acquired legal significance, including whether it constituted adverse possession or otherwise created enforceable rights, would require adjudication of disputed questions concerning possession and title on the basis of evidence.

Those questions could not appropriately be resolved under Article 226 through the limited writ record.

Accordingly, the Court declined to examine or declare the petitioners’ title or rights, while recognising that the exceptionally long interval before implementation of the 1982 order justified temporary protection to enable the petitioners to seek civil relief.

The petitioners were granted liberty to institute an appropriate civil suit before the competent Civil Court, seeking declaration of their rights in respect of the land on the basis of adverse possession, within six weeks from the date of the order.

No coercive steps pursuant to the Tehsildar’s order dated 10.02.2025 were to be taken during that six-week period.

If a civil proceeding was instituted within that period, the petitioners could seek interim protection before the Civil Court, which was directed to consider such relief independently and in accordance with law.

The Civil Court was directed not to be influenced by observations in the writ order.