IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 7052 of 2025

PURSHOTTAM AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate along with Shri Shatru Daman

Singh Bhadouriyia- Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Rinkesh Goyal- Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER them vide registered sale deed dated 03.09.1983, admeasuring 0.721 hectare. The old survey number of the land was 1108. It is further pleaded that after purchase of the land, demarcation was conducted twice, on 24.04.2006 and 29.07.2011, and thereafter a diversion order was passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. The plaintiffs challenged the action of respondent No. 2, who initiated proceedings against them, and sought a declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession or dismantling any part of the property. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession over land bearing Survey No. 670, ad-measuring 0.721 hectare.

The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Ashoknagar, District Ashoknagar (First Appellate Court) in MCA No. 38 of 2025, whereby the said Court affirmed the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ashoknagar (Trial Court) in RCS No. 181-A/2025, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of

the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Necessary facts giving rise to present petition are that the

petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, pleading that they are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 670 situated at Ashoknagar. The said land was purchased by

3. Upon issuance of notice, the defendants filed their reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, contending that there is a discrepancy between the map of Sambat 1919 and the present map, and alleging that the plaintiffs are in unauthorised possession over a portion of the land. On this basis, dismissal of the application was prayed for.

4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application for temporary injunction. The said order was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide order dated 18.11.2025.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by learned First Appellate Court as well as Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the Courts below committed a grave error of law by ignoring material facts on record. It is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the ownership of Survey No. 670, which is a private land, whereas Survey No. 669 is an Aukaf land, and this position is undisputed. It is further contended that the defendants have never disputed the possession of the petitioners over Survey No. 670 on the basis of revenue records. After purchase of the land in the year 1983, a diversion order was passed by the competent authority on 16.08.2004, followed by demarcation by the revenue authorities. Neither the diversion order nor the demarcation report was ever challenged by the defendants. It is argued that initiation of proceedings by the Collector after a lapse of more than 19 years is without jurisdiction, and both the Courts below failed to consider this crucial aspect. The petitioners, being in peaceful and settled possession since 1983, would suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction is denied.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the impugned orders and submitted that the petitioners have encroached upon