IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 1312 of 2024

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Versus

BHASKAR DUTT DWIVEDI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi-Deputy Advocate General for appellant/State.

Shri Chandrahas Dubey- Advocate for respondent no.1.

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

The appellant/State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this writ appeal

challenging the 22.05.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby the writ petition No.

13236/2024 has been allowed.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

(a) The respondent no.1/writ petitioner raised a grievance by way of a

writ petition that the respondents are constructing a road on private agricultural land, which amounts to a violation of the constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The writ petition came up for hearing on 20.05.2024 (Annexure A-2). The Deputy Government Advocate, who was appearing on the said date in the court, was directed to seek instructions in the matter, and the case was kept for

21.05.2024. On 21.05.2024, the Deputy Government Advocate made a statement that the road was being constructed on the part of private land belonging to the petitioner. However, nothing in writing on an affidavit was filed before the writ court. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, restraining the respondents therein to constructing the road on the land belonging to the petitioner. The case was kept on 22.05.2024 without a reply from the respondents for further arguments.

(b) The writ court has not only allowed the writ petition with a direction to remove the road constructed on the private land of the petitioner within 24 hours and submit a report by tomorrow before the Registrar General of this Court also directed the respondents to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per day to the petitioner till the road is actually dismantled from the land belonging to the petitioner and the same will be recovered from Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Executive Engineer, PWD, Rewa Division, Rewa. The writ court has also imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/-

to be deposited by Shri Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi.

(c) The appellant/State immediately rushed to this Court by way of present writ appeal. Vide order dated 27.06.2024, the Division Bench stayed the effect of the other observations made by the Court against the officer concerned till the next date of hearing.

(d) The respondent/writ petitioner has filed the reply in this writ appeal along with photographs to show that the appellant started construction of the road on his private land. Therefore, the writ petition was rightly allowed with heavy cost; hence, this writ appeal may kindly be dismissed.

3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

4. Admittedly, in the writ petition, the petitioner has impleaded respondent no.1/State of Madhya Pradesh, respondent no.2/Collector, respondent no.3/Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Mauganj, respondent no.4/Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mauganj, respondent no.5/Gram Panchayat, Mauganj, respondent no.6/Sadhan Singh, Sarpanch, and respondent no.7; Arjun Singh Baghel, Government Contractor. No notices were issued to them, and only the Deputy Advocate General was directed to seek instructions within 24 hours, and thereafter, on her statement, the entire writ petition came to be allowed with costs. The State Government and other respondents were not given any notice to file the para- wise reply. Since the construction was going on the private land of the writ petitioner, the stay had already been granted, hence a direction to the respondents to file their reply by issuing a process fee could have been issued, but within three days, the writ petition was allowed, without calling report from the concerned Gram Panchayat, PWD Department, and Contractor