MP High Court recalls dismissal for fresh hearing over purported eviction order allegedly used to dispossess woman

The petitioner sought review of the judgment dated 23.08.2026 dismissing Writ Petition No. 35228 of 2026.

The writ petition concerned an alleged order dated 20.04.2026 purportedly passed by the Additional Commissioner in Second Appeal No. 2141/Appeal/2025-26, and a consequential notice/order dated 20.08.2026 issued by the Tehsildar for taking possession of Survey No. 388/2/14, Village Khajrana, Indore.

The petitioner contended that she had never been served with the second appeal or the alleged order and had obtained knowledge of it only through the consequential notice affixed at her residence on 22.08.2026.

In review, she produced certified proceedings indicating that the appeal appeared to have continued after 20.04.2026, including an endorsement dated 18.08.2026 and a subsequent date of 17.11.2026.

She also relied on a police complaint dated 25.08.2026 alleging fabrication and use of the purported order.

The earlier judgment had proceeded on the assumption that the alleged order dated 20.04.2026 validly directed eviction under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and had dismissed the writ petition; it also contained an apparent inconsistency between its reasoning and operative conclusion.

1. Whether the subsequent production of certified proceedings, together with the absence of the alleged foundational order dated 20.04.2026 from the writ record, disclosed sufficient grounds for reviewing or recalling the judgment dated 23.08.2026?

2. Whether coercive possession proceedings could be permitted on the basis of an order whose existence, authenticity, operative status, and manner of issuance had not yet been verified?

3. Whether the allegations of fabrication justified a finding of forgery or a direction for registration of an FIR in the review proceedings?

The Court applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction: review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely to obtain reconsideration on the merits; however, review or recall is permissible where subsequent material reveals that a material fact or document directly affecting the foundation of the earlier order was unavailable or not considered, resulting in an error apparent on the record or failure of justice.

The Court also considered the requirement that coercive action under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, must rest on a genuine, operative order of the competent authority and must comply with principles of notice and hearing.

Allegations of fabrication, by themselves, do not establish forgery; their determination requires investigation by the competent authority and, where necessary, forensic or technical examination.

The Court found that the earlier judgment had materially proceeded on the assumption that the order dated 20.04.2026 existed and validly authorised the consequential dispossession proceedings, although that order had never been placed before the Court.

The certified order-sheet subsequently produced by the petitioner appeared to show that the appeal continued after the alleged date of the order, with proceedings dated 18.08.2026 and a further listing on 17.11.2026. This created a foundational doubt regarding the existence, authenticity, and operative status of the alleged order.

The petitioner’s assertion that she had not been served with the appeal or afforded an opportunity of hearing further reinforced the need for reconsideration.

The Court also noted the inconsistency between the earlier judgment’s observation that the Additional Commissioner’s order could be “bad in law” and its ultimate dismissal of the writ petition.

Although the police complaint and surrounding circumstances warranted verification, they did not, at the review stage, justify a judicial finding that the order was forged or a direct finding of criminal liability.

Review Petition No. 2005 of 2026 was accordingly allowed, the judgment in Writ Petition No. 35228 of 2026 was recalled, and the writ petition was restored to its original number for consideration by the appropriate Bench on 21.09.2026.

The Court expressly declined to decide the title dispute, the petitioner’s status as a chowkidar, the validity of the Section 250 proceedings, or whether fabrication had occurred. Those matters were left for determination on the basis of the complete record and by the competent investigating authorities, in accordance with law.