IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

MISC. PETITION No. 5509 of 2025

SOURABH AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Maqbool Ahmed Mansoori - Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mukesh Parwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on 31.10.2025

Delivered on 06.01.2026

ORDER 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 Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "MPLRC"), no actual dispossession occurred, and their possession continued uninterrupted. On 19.05.2025, 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.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been

filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 15.09.2025 (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 dated 08.07.2025 (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

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 Section 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 dated 08.07.2025, 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 Section 248 MPLRC. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also not in favor of the petitioners. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 15.09.2025, 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 2006 RN 271, and others, emphasizing that where legal proceedings under Section 248 MPLRC are underway with due notice, no injunction can be granted to protect unauthorized possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the courts below erred in not appreciating the prima facie case in their favor, as the long- standing possession (over 45-75 years) with structures like house, well, and fencing raises triable issues. He contended that even unlawful possess