Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 298 (MP)

Raj Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya

2024-03-20

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs : “(i) to call the entire relevant record. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to quash the impugned order dated 7.12.2023 and 6.2.2024 (Annexure P-1) which is passed against the principles of natural justice. (iii) to restrain the respondent to not dispossess the petitioner’s from the land owned by the petitioners in the garb of the impugned order as well as restrain to demolish the residential house occupied by the petitioners. (iv) to direct the respondent authority alternatively to decide reply of petitioners and if decision goes against the petitioners such order kept in advance till the appeal period. (v) to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted to the petitioners.” 2. The counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No.2781 of 2021 dated 11.2.2021, the respondents-State are in the process of removing the petitioners on the ground that they are encroachers on the lands in question. That even though notices were issued by the State and the reply was filed by the petitioners, the same has not been considered. They have submitted various documents with regard to the proof of their right, title and possession over the lands in question. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents are hell bent upon demolishing their structures. 3. On considering the same, we are of the view that the question of the right, title or possession of the petitioners over the lands in question cannot be agitated in a writ petition. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the civil Court in order to establish their right or title. 4. Therefore, we do not find it expedient to entertain the writ petition on disputed questions of fact. However, in view of the fact that there is an immediate threat of demolishing the houses of the petitioners, we deem it just and necessary to direct the respondents to stay their hands for a period of four weeks from today. In the interregnum, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned civil Court for necessary orders. 5. The petition is disposed off.