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 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2109 of 2025 SMT. SANGITA GUPTA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain with Ms. Sonali Jain, Advocates for the respondents No. 3 to 5.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal By way of this writ appeal the appellants are challenging the order dated

15.05.2025 passed in W.P. No. 6690 of 2023 by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition of the appellants granting liberty to the them to apply for the fresh license in accordance with law. The appellants are also challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 whereby the intervention application of the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 was allowed.

2. By order dated 14.03.2023, the Divisional Forest Officer (South Division), Balaghat Division, District Balaghat (M.P.), issued a direction stating that the original licence holder, Shri Rajkishore Gupta, had expired on 15.06.2019 and that, thereafter, the licence had not been renewed. Consequently, directions were issued to stop the operation of the sawmill forthwith in the absence of renewal of the licence. The said order dated 14.03.2023 was challenged in W.P. No.6690/2025, which came to be dismissed on the ground that there was no provision for renewal or transfer of the licence in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased licence holder.

3. We find that the observation made in the impugned order to the effect that there is no provision for transfer of licence in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased licence holder is not correct. There exists a provision enabling transfer/mutation of the licence in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. However, it is equally evident that in the writ petition no specific relief was claimed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider or decide the petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence. The petitioner merely sought a direction restraining the respondents from stopping the operation of the sawmill.

4. The objectors were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition and also in the present writ appeal. In compliance with the interim order passed by the writ court, the petitioners/appellants have already complied with the directions issued therein. The objectors have been duly represented by counsel. There is no dispute between the petitioners/appellants and the objectors with respect to the ownership of the sawmill business. The objectors are neither claiming any right over the sawmill business nor seeking renewal of the licence in thier favour. The objectors were impleaded solely on the ground that a civil suit for partition of property is pending before the competent civil court. It is fairly submitted that both parties are in possession of their respective shares and that the civil court has passed an injunction order restraining both parties from interfering with each other’s possession. In our considered view, the writ court cannot adjudicate upon issues relating to title or ownership of land. Therefore, there was no necessity to hear the objectors before consideration of renewal of the licence. Consequently, the objectors are not necessary party. Since the petitioners/appellants have already honoured the interim order passed by the writ court and the objectors were impleaded as a respondent, there is no requirement to set aside the said order.

5. It is not in dispute that, as on date, the petitioners/appellants do not possess a valid or subsisting licence for operating the sawmill. The licence expired due to non-renewal within the prescribed period. Therefore, the petitioners/respondents are not entitled to operate the sawmill without renewal of the licence. Though it is stated that another petition seeking directi