MP HC Rejects Five Claimants’ Eviction Challenge, Directs Officials To Hand Khajrana Land To Builder, Preferably Within 30 Days

In brief

The question

Whether the SDO’s orders of 11 March 2024, made after considering representations by persons not identified in the earlier demarcation proceedings, were consistent with the prior judicial direction to remove encroachments and restore possession to the builder.

The court held

W.P. No. 18150/2024 was allowed and the SDO’s orders dated 11 March 2024 were set aside.

It also directed

The five connected writ petitions—W.P. Nos. 16249, 16676, 16752, 17231 and 17241 of 2024—were dismissed. In Contempt Petition No. 109/2024, the authorities were directed to implement the earlier order by removing any encroachments and handing over possession to the builder, preferably within 30 days of receiving the order; the contempt petition was disposed of. Contempt Petition Nos. 2907/2024 and 3112/2024 were dismissed.

01Facts

M/s Shree Ram Builders claimed ownership of Survey No. 66/2(k), admeasuring 0.720 hectare, at Village Khajrana, Indore. After demarcation identified encroachers on the land, the builder obtained an order for restoration of possession under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLR Code).

¶ 3

Following directions in separate writ petitions, certain persons made representations to the SDO. On 11 March 2024, the SDO passed orders which the builder challenged in W.P. No. 18150/2024. Five other writ petitions were filed by persons opposing proposed eviction, and three contempt petitions were also before the Court.

¶ 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the SDO’s orders of 11 March 2024, made after considering representations by persons not identified in the earlier demarcation proceedings, were consistent with the prior judicial direction to remove encroachments and restore possession to the builder.

¶ 13–16, 19

ii.Whether the petitioners in the five connected writ petitions established a basis for writ protection against eviction from the land.

¶ 13, 16–19

iii.What directions, if any, were required concerning implementation of the earlier possession order and the pending contempt petitions.

¶ 19

03Law Applied

Section 250 of the MPLR Code provides for restoration of possession where a bhumiswami has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law or another person continues in unauthorised possession; the Tahsildar may inquire into the parties’ claims and order restoration, and may initiate proceedings suo motu in the circumstances specified by the provision.

¶ 12

The principle governing mandamus, as set out in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust and reproduced in the prior appellate order, is that it may issue where the applicant has a subsisting legal right and the public authority has a corresponding legal duty.

¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

MP Land Revenue Code 1959 Section 250 Section 165 Section 2 Section 129

Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 Section 299 Section 308

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 54

04Reasoning

The Court treated the prior demarcation and resulting litigation as establishing that the identified occupants were the encroachers against whom the restoration order had been made.

¶ 15–18

It held that the SDO had misinterpreted the directions to make representations: those directions required examination of the claimants’ documents and the location of their properties, not the initiation of fresh Section 250 proceedings that impeded implementation of the appellate order.

¶ 16, 19