IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1906 of 2026 VIJAY SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Smt. Archana Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri V. S. Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.

ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 4 to decide/ consider the representation / objection of the petitioner dated 21.07.2025 produced as Annexure-P/3.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to restraining the Respondents, their agents, and subordinate authorities from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner and his family or demolishing the residential house situated over Araji No.142/1, Village Dasaipur, Mouja Dhatura, Tehsil Maihar, District Maihar (M.P.), during the pendency of the present writ petition.

(iii). Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice passed by the Respondent no. 4 in vide Annexure-P/2.

(iv). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

2. On 21.1.2026 State counsel was directed to verify the statement made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that no further proceedings under Section 248 of MPLRC have taken place since 21/07/2025. On instructions, the State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that final order dated 21.8.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Maihar, District Maihar under Section 248 of MPLRC.

3. If the order dated 21.8.2025 passed by the Tehsildar is perused, then it is seen that notice was issued to the encroacher. He had appeared before the authority. He had also filed reply and thereafter, the order was passed. This order and the material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner from this Court while filing this petition. Under these circumstances, this petition suffers from suppression of material facts.

4. As a general rule, suppression of material facts disqualifies the litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved to deter the litigant from abusing the process of this Court by descanting it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 has held as under :

"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality.

45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows:

“9. … It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent.”

46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject wa