Madhya Pradesh High CourtAdministrative and Public LawProperty and Real Estate Law

MP HC Directs Sheopur Collector to Decide Farmer’s Request to Sell Land, Preferably Within Six Weeks

Shri Ram Adiwasiv.The State Of Madhya Pradesh

MP HC Directs Sheopur Collector to Decide Farmer’s Request to Sell Land, Preferably Within Six Weeks. Shri Ram Adiwasi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Collector should be directed to decide the petitioner’s pending representation seeking permission to sell the land.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector, District Sheopur, to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 7 September 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and taking account of the reports and recommendations on record, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed to be the recorded Bhumiswami of agricultural land measuring 0.0940 hectares at Village Kurachor Goverdha Khurd, District Sheopur, allotted in 1971.

¶ 2

He sought permission from the Collector to sell the land, citing family and medical expenses.

¶ 2

The Tehsildar submitted a report, and the Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded recommendations, but the Collector had not decided the application.

¶ 2–4

The petitioner also filed a representation dated 7 September 2026 and sought a direction for its determination.

¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether the Collector should be directed to decide the petitioner’s pending representation seeking permission to sell the land.

¶ 1, 4, 6

ii.Whether the Court should determine the merits of the petitioner’s request for permission to sell the land.

¶ 6–7

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the Court considered whether a direction should issue requiring the competent authority to decide the pending representation.

¶ 1

The Court directed the authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, but cited no particular statute, precedent, or substantive rule governing the proposed transfer.

¶ 6

The circular dated 17 January 2014 was raised by the petitioner, but the Court did not rely on it to decide the merits.

¶ 4

04Reasoning

Given the limited nature of the relief sought, the State’s lack of objection, and the existence of reports and recommendations on record, the Court considered it appropriate to require the Collector to decide the representation rather than determine the transfer request itself.

¶ 5–6

It directed the Collector to take the available reports and recommendations into account and expressly left the merits open.

¶ 6–7

05Holding

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Collector, District Sheopur, to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 7 September 2026 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and taking account of the reports and recommendations on record, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

¶ 6

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.

¶ 7
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Shri Ram AdiwasivsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · November 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment