IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 38460 of 2025 KAMAL KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Smrati Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER Heard on the question of admission.

The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claims the following reliefs:

"(a) That, respondent authorities may kindly be directed to conduct the enquiry against the erring revenue officers who are responsible for making willful interference in the land in question in utter disregard to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.A. No. 2432/2024.

(b) That, respondent authorities may kindly be directed to take affirmative steps in pursuance of representations given by the petitioner.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also kindly be granted."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that respondent No.6 has lost up to this Court in Second Appeal No.2432/2024 (Annexure-P/4) with respect to the issue of title, possession and permanent injunction granted in favor of the petitioner by the civil court in Regular Civil Suit No.12A/2021, pertaining to land bearing survey Nos.19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 38 and 41, admeasuring 0.1000, 0.1700, 0.2500, 0.4900, 0.0500, 0.430, 0.6200 and 0.8500 hectares respectively, situated at Village Jaitpura, Tehsil Virpur, District Sheopur, the respondent No.6, in connivance with certain revenue authorities, is interfering into the possession of the petitioner and is violating the order passed by this Court dated 28.07.2025 in Second Appeal No.2432/2024, and therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to the Collector, before whom the petitioner has already made a representation. 3. This Court has gone through the pleadings made in the petition along with the documents placed on record. It reveals that a decree of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the lands in question has been passed in favor of the petitioner vide judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vijaypur, District Sheopur, in Regular Civil Suit No.12A/2021. The challenge made by respondent No.6 to the aforesaid judgment and decree remained unsuccessful up to this Court, and his second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure-P/4). ​

4. Though the relief prayed for in the petition has been couched in a manner to indicate that the respondents are violating the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.2432/2024; however, the fact remains that the judgment and decree has been passed by the civil court in favor of the petitioner, and the interference therein has been declined by this Court in the second appeal preferred by respondent No.6, thereby affirming the decree passed by the trial Court, however, no specific direction has been issued by this Court vide order dated

28.07.2025 passed in Second Appeal No.2432/2024.

5. In case the judgment-debtors violate the injunction decree and forcibly take possession, whether the remedy of the decree holders would be to file application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC has been emphatically settled by this Court in the case of Toram Singh vs. Imrat Singh and Other reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 385, in which it has been held in paragraph Nos.12 to 16 as under:

“12. A bare perusal of the recommendation shows that the intention was to adopt a wider view to cover prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. Interestingly, this recommendation was made by Law Commission even contrary to the views taken by various High Courts before such recommendation. It was felt necessary to include that Explanation in the interest of justice so that decree-holder should not be driven to a separate suit for getting relief in the nature of enforcement of a decree which will ultimate