2026 Supreme(MP) 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
JAI KUMAR PILLAI, J.
Sudhirdas And Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6622 of 2020
Decided On : 14-05-2026

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for adjudicating complex disputed questions of property title, which must be resolved through a civil suit. Additionally, an FIR disclosing cognizable offences should not be quashed at the threshold, allowing the investigation to proceed.

Headnote:

Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuq- 226 & e- ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 & èkkjk 248 & fjV vfèkdkfjrk & fdlh iwoZ&lwpuk ;k lquokà d¢ volj d¢ fcuk ;kph d¨ fookfnr laifÙk ls csdCtk fd;k x;k & ;g lkfcr djus d¢ fy, vfÒys[k ij d¨Ã nLrkosth lk{; ugÈ fd [kljk çfof"V;¨a esa ^^vkcknh^^ dk oxÊdj.k dSls lqfu;¨ftr :i ls ^^vkcknh Ãlkà nok[kkuk^^ rFkk rRi'pkr~ ^^vkcknh elhr v¨loky^^ esa laifjofrZr gqvk & ;g LFkkfir djus d¢ fy, Òh vfÒys[k ij dqN ugÈ fd jktLo çfof"V;¨a us ;kph d¢ iwoZt¨a d¢ e©fyd gd d¢ varj.k d¢ fy, dSls dk;Z fd;k & vU;Fkk Òh] ukekarj.k çfof"V;¨a ;k dj¨a ds lank; ls gd çnÙk ;k fuokZfir ugÈ gksrk & vfÒys[kkuqlkj] iwoZt rFkk rRi'pkr~ ;kph vfÒj{kd dh gSfl;r ls fpfdRlky; vèkh{kd d¢ in ij fu;qä fd, x, & fQj Òh ;kph us fofèkekU; nLrkost¨a d¢ fcuk rFkk fofèk d¢ mYyaÄu esa uxjikfydk vfÒys[k¨a esa viuk ukekarj.k djok;k & rRi'pkr~ jftLVªhÑr iÍk foys[k rFkk foØ; djkj dk fu"iknu fd,] t¨ vkf{kIr çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ dk vkèkkj cus & ;g LFkkfir djus d¢ fy, d¨Ã nLrkost ugÈ fd mud¢ vfèkdkj¨a esa ijO;fä;ksa d¨ laifÙk dk iÍk nsus ;k foØ; djus dh 'kfä fofèkd :i ls lfEefyr gS & ;g lÒh rF;¨a d¢ vR;ar fookfnr ç'u gSa & bud¢ fy, e©f[kd rFkk nLrkosth lk{; dk mfpr foospu vko';d gS & laf{kIr fjV dk;Zokgh esa ,sls tfVy rkfF;d voèkkj.k ugÈ fd, tk ldrs & fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt & rFkkfi] ;kph d¨ laifÙk dk foØ; ;k iÍk djus dk vfèkdkj lkfcr djus d¢ fy, flfoy okn çLrqr djus dh Lora=rk nh xÃA ¼2019½ 2 ,llhlh 329 rFkk 2021 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,llh 802 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34 ls 39
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 409] 420] 467] 468] 471 rFkk 120[k & çFke bfÙkyk fji¨VZ dk vfÒ[kaMu & laf{kIr fjV dk;Zokgh esa laHkor% ;g fuf'pr :i ls LFkkfir ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk fd laifÙk vuU; :i ls ljdkj dh gS ;k ugha & LokfeRo d¢ lacaèk esa lansg ls jkT; dh Òwfedk lfØ; gks tkrh gS & jkT; ,slh laifÙk d¨ vçkfèkÑr vfÒj{kd¨a d¢ voSèk vU;laØke.k ls ifjjf{kr j[kus d¢ fy, l'kä vafre vfÒj{kd gS & fofèklEer vUos"k.kksa dks vkjaÒ esa gh j¨dk ugÈ tk ldrk & laKs; vijkèk¨a dk vUos"k.k djuk iqfyl dk dkuwuh vfèkdkj rFkk vkR;afrd drZO; gS] ftlesa lgt gh ckèkk ugÈ Mkyh tkuk pkfg,A 1968 ,llhlh vkWuykbu ,llh 33] 1992 ,llhlh ¼fØ-½ 426 rFkk ¼2021½ 19 ,llhlh 401 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 30 ,oa 35 ls 39

(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 248 -- writ jurisdiction -- dispossession of petitioner from disputed property without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing -- no documentary evidence on record to prove how classification of ''Abadi'' in khasra entries was systematically converted into ''Abadi Isai Dawakhana'' and then ''Abadi Maseet Oswal'' -- also nothing on record to establish how revenue entries functioned to transfer substantive title to ancestors of petitioner -- even otherwise, mutation entries or payment of taxes do not confer or extinguish title -- as per records, ancestors and then petitioner appointed as hospital superintendents in caretaker capacity -- yet, petitioner had his name mutated in municipal records without valid documents and in contravention of law -- subsequently executed registered lease deed and agreement to sell, which form basis of impugned FIR -- no document to establish that their rights legally included power to lease out or sell property to third parties -- all these are highly disputed questions of facts -- necessitate proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence -- such complex factual determinations cannot be undertaken in summary writ proceedings -- writ petition dismissed -- however, petitioner granted liberty to file civil suit to prove ownership, title and substantive right to sell or lease property. (2019) 2 SCC 329 and 2021 SCC Online SC 802 followed. [Paras 34 to 39

(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B -- quashing of FIR -- it may not be definitely established in summary writ proceedings whether property exclusively belongs to Government -- doubt regarding ownership triggers role of State -- State is ultimate custodian empowered to preserve such property from illegal alienation by unauthorized caretakers -- legitimate investigations cannot be stifled at threshold -- police have statutory right and absolute duty to investigate cognizable offences, which must not be casually thwarted. 1968 SCC Online SC 33, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 and (2021) 19 SCC 401 followed. [Paras 30 & 35 to 39

Table of Content
1. factual background involving land title dispute and criminal allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. adjudication of counter-claims regarding proprietary rights and criminal liability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. non-adjudication of complex factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. mutation does not confer title; civil court is the appropriate forum. (Para 22 , 28 , 31)
5. parameters for quashing fir under section 482/article 226 guidelines. (Para 32 , 33)
6. dismissal of petition with liberty to seek civil remedy. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

ORDER

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the alleged high-handed, illegal, and arbitrary actions of the Respondents, who purportedly attempted to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing.

2. During the pendency of the petition, by way of an amendment, the petitioners have additionally prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus for the quashment of the FIR registered against them at Crime No. 142 at Police Station Naugaon, District Dhar. The petitioners further seek an appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents to restore the possession of the property, alleging that the Respondents have illegally claimed to have taken possession thereof and have obstructed the course of justice.

Facts of the Case

3. The subject matter of the dispute is the land bearing Survey No. 770 (old No. 748), admeasuring 0.493 hectare, situated in village Naugaon, District Dhar. The petitioners assert that this land has been owned and recorded as "Abadi, Masih (Mission) Hospital" in the revenue records since at least the year 1927-28.

4. The petitioners claim that ownership rights were granted by the Ruler of the erstwhile Dhar State in 1895. It is asserted that the ancestors of Petitioner No. 1 constructed buildings, including a hospital and residential quarters, in 1897, with further reconstruction carried out in the year 1925.

5. The village Naugaon was included in the municipal area of Dhar vide notification dated 02.07.1965. The property was subsequently recorded as Municipal No. 203, Bakhtawar Marg, Dhar, initially in the name of Mission Hospital through Dr. E.P. Das, and after her death, through Petitioner No. 1.

6. By an order dated 22.07.2008, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Nazul), Dhar, terminated proceedings initiated against Petitioner No. 1 under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. A subsequent notice for dispossession issued in 2018 was also dropped by the SDO (Revenue) vide an order dated 13.05.2019.

7. Asserting ownership rights, Petitioner No. 1 executed a registered lease deed on 23.02.2008 and a registered agreement to sell on 29.01.2009 in favor of Petitioner No. 2. However, on 20.12.2019, the Respondents allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess the petitioners by placing locks on parts of the premises.

8. Subsequently, on 25.03.2022, an FIR bearing Crime No. 142 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC, based on a complaint made by the Tahsildar, Dhar, alleging fraudulent alienation of Government property.

Contentions of the Petitioner

9. The petitioners contend that the property has been undisputedly private land for over 123 years, and the impugned action of dispossession without notice is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of constitutional rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

10. It is submitted that the orders passed by the SDO on 22.07.2008 and 13.05.2019 categorically held that the land is private and not Government land. The petitioners argue that since these orders were never challenged by the State, they have attained finality and are binding upon the Respondents.

11. The petitioners further highlight that in earl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document