IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17743 of 2018 PARMAL SINGH AND OTHERS Versus SUNEEL KUMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Deepak Shrivastav - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri A P S Tomar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Cr.R. No. 50/2015 whereby the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by learned SDM in Case No. 2/2013/133 was upheld.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1, Sunil, filed an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) concerning land situated at Survey No. 742, measuring 0.021 hectares, in Village Mahidpur, Tehsil Isagarh. The land in question is government-owned and serves as a public common pathway used by the respondent and other villagers. The pathway had been constructed with Kharanja C.C. (cement concrete) by the Gram Panchayat Mahidpur, extending over a length of more than 40 feet. The petitioners, without any authorization, dug up and destroyed the Kharanja and forcibly encroached upon the pathway to construct a permanent house. Consequently, the forward portion of the pathway was blocked. On the opposite side of the pathway stands the respondent’s residential house. The petitioners, by erecting walls and directing water drainage towards the respondent’s temporary house, caused water accumulation, resulting in the collapse of the respondent’s house on 09.08.2013. Upon objecting to the obstruction of the pathway and the destruction of the Kharanja, the respondent was threatened with death by the petitioners. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), by order dated 29.09.2015, disposed of the respondent’s application with the following directions:

The petitioners shall immediately remove the grill obstructing the disputed pathway and shall not prevent the respondent or any other villagers from using the path in the future. Both parties shall not render the path unusable.

Both parties shall make proper arrangements for the drainage of rainwater from their respective roofs, either through pipes or drainage channels in the walls, ensuring that neither party’s walls are damaged and pedestrian movement is not obstructed during the rainy season.

No construction or barrier of any kind shall be erected on the path connecting the two houses along the Naisaranya–Vijaypura route.

The petitioners shall not plant trees or shrubs behind the respondent’s house that may cause damage in the future. Any existing trees with potential for damage may be removed with permission.

In the event of non-compliance with any of the above directions, the Station House Officer of Police Station Isagarh shall ensure enforcement of this order.

The petitioners preferred a revision against the SDM’s order before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. The revision petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.04.2018, thereby affirming the SDM’s directions. Subsequently, the present petition has been filed challenging the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned courts below, without duly considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, have acted erroneously in accepting the application filed by respondent under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. In their reply, the petitioners had clearly stated that the land bearing Survey No. 742, measuring 0.021 hectares and situated in Village Mahidpur, is not subject to any construction or obstruction, and has been used by the villagers for movement for the past 25 years. Similarly, Survey No. 743, measuring 0.146 hectares, was purchased by the petitioner’s wife through a registered sale deed in 2010, upon which a house was constructed at that time. The petitioners have not encroached upon the land mentioned in the ap