SOURABH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dtd. 15/9/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Nagda, District Ujjain (M.P.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 12/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed, thereby affirming the order dtd. 8/7/2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by the II Additional Civil Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagda, District Ujjain (M.P.) in RCS No. 39-A/2025, rejecting the petitioners' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners instituted a civil suit against the respondents for declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession and for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 563/1 admeasuring 0.178 hectares and Survey No. 564/1 admeasuring 0.084 hectares, situated at Village Padliyakala, Tehsil Nagda, District Ujjain (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to "suit land"). It is the case of the petitioners that though the suit land is recorded as Government land in the revenue records, their forefathers have been in continuous, open, and hostile possession thereof for more than 75 years. They claim that during the regime of Gwalior State, a kavelu posh house was constructed on the land, which has been used for residential purposes, and the adjoining land for agricultural activities, cattle rearing, etc. A 'well ' was also constructed for irrigation. The petitioners aver that despite notices issued in 1980 and 2017 for eviction under Sec. 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "MPLRC"), no actual dispossession occurred, and their possession continued uninterrupted. On 19/5/2025, another notice was issued by respondent No. 2 (Tehsildar, Nagda) for removal of encroachment, leading to the filing of the suit along with an application for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The respondent/State opposed the application, contending that the suit land is Government land, and the petitioners are mere encroachers. They submitted that eviction proceedings under Sec. 248 MPLRC have been initiated from time to time, and the principle of adverse possession does not apply to Government land without strict proof of 30 years' continuous hostile possession. The Trial Court, vide order dtd. 8/7/2025, rejected the temporary injunction application, holding that no prima facie case was made out, as the documents did not establish continuous possession over both survey numbers since 1980, and the respondents were following due process under Sec. 248 MPLRC. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also not in favor of the petitioners. The Appellate Court, vide order dtd. 15/9/2025, affirmed the Trial Court's findings, relying on precedents such as Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (2012) 5 SCC 370, State of M.P. vs. Ismail Khan 2 006 RN 271, and others, emphasizing that where legal proceedings under Sec. 248 MPLRC are underway with due notice, no injunction can be granted to protect unauthorized possession.