Facts
The petitioners challenged the construction of a new Panchayat Bhavan for Gram Panchayat Todi on land Survey No. 53, claiming they had been in exclusive possession of said land for a long period
Source reference: p. 2They contended that a previous resolution and sanction existed for construction on Survey No. 99(B), where the old Bhavan stood
Source reference: p. 2Following a previous High Court direction dated 12.01.2026 to decide the petitioners' representation, the Collector, District Guna, issued an order on 05.02.2026 allotting 0.045 hectares of Survey No. 53 for the Bhavan
Source reference: p. 3The petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, which remains pending
Source reference: p. 3Subsequently, the Collector (Nazool) issued the impugned order dated 18.02.2026, rejecting the petitioners' representation/objections
Source reference: p. 4The petitioners alleged the order was passed without considering the enquiry report and that the land was "disputed" contrary to government mandates
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 was passed without due application of mind and in the absence of relevant enquiry reports
Source reference: p. 42. Whether the pendency of a civil suit regarding the subject land creates a legal bar against the State from proceeding with a public construction project
Source reference: p. 73. Whether the High Court should interfere with an administrative decision regarding land allotment under Article 226
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
The court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that the scope of interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness, perversity, or violation of statutory provisions
Source reference: p. 7the mere pendency of a civil suit, absent an interim injunction, does not restrain state authorities from lawful action
Source reference: p. 7unauthorized occupants of government land, particularly those already subjected to eviction under revenue laws (such as Tehsildar Case No. 0097/A-68/2025-26 [p. 6]), cannot obstruct public utility projects
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The court found that the Collector had considered all relevant materials, including Patwari reports, spot inspections, and statements of witnesses
Source reference: p. 6It rejected the petitioners' claim that the enquiry report was ignored, noting that the order reflected a comprehensive review of the findings by the Joint Collector and Tehsildar
Source reference: p. 7The analysis highlighted that the petitioners were found to be "unauthorized occupants" of government land and had already been evicted and fined Rs. 20,000/- for the same
Source reference: p. 6-7The court reasoned that since the land is officially government-owned and the petitioners failed to secure any interim protection from the Civil Court or challenge their eviction order, their objections were meritless attempts to stall a public project
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The Court held that the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 suffered from no legal infirmity
It dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the Collector’s decision was based on a proper factual enquiry and that the land was required for a public purpose
Source reference: p. 8Case dismissed; Однако the court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue other available legal remedies
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Ramesh Chand AhirwarvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in