SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2980

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Kashi Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
WP 2959/2006



Advocates:
U.K.Jain,A.K.Jain,Arvind Dwivedi,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4383

1 WP-2959-2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 2959 of 2006

KASHI PRASAD

Versus

STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Shrivastava & Shri A.K. Jain, Advocates for the

petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwah - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.

1,4, 5 & 6/State.

None for the LRs. of respondent No.2, though served.

Name of respondent No.3 stands deleted from the array of petition

vide order dated 09.01.2025.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India claims following reliefs:-

"1. The orders, Annexure P-3, Annexure P-4 and Annexure

P-5 passed by Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Officer and

Commissioner respectively may kindly be quashed and the

allotment proceedings being contrary to law may kindly be

quashed and the plaintiff be declared Bhumiswami of the

land.

2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in

the facts and circumstances of the case be allowed.

3. Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner."

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that land

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VANDANA

VERMA

Signing time: 04-Feb-26

7:12:36 PM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4383

2 WP-2959-2006

bearing Survey No.401/1 admeasuring 6 bigha 7 biswa situated at village

Sainthra Badhai, Tehsil Porsa, District Morena was granted on patta to the

uncle of the petitioner, namely late Mataprasad, by the erstwhile Zamindar

somewhere in Samvat 2007. A civil suit was instituted by late Mataprasad

against the State seeking a decree of declaration and confirmation of

Bhumiswami rights in respect of the said land vide Civil Suit No 93-A/79

wherein, the issue as regards grant of patta of land bearing Survey No.401/1

in favour of late Mataprasad was found proved and it was also proved in the

said suit that late Mataprasad had attained the rights of Pakka Krishak in

respect of survey No.401/1. However, vide judgment and decree dated

3.8.1981, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground of

non-compliance of Section 57(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

3. It is further submitted that subsequently, the procedure for

changing the nature of the said land was initiated by the revenue authorities

and the process of settlement of the land in favour of certain persons was

undertaken by the Tahsildar, culminating in an order dated 20.02.2001. The

said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a first appeal before the

Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter a second appeal before the

Commissioner, Chambal Division; however, both the appeals came to be

dismissed vide orders dated 24.09.2002 and 03.03.2006 respectively. These

orders are also under challenge in the instant writ petition.

4. The solitary argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner is that once the issue as regards attainment of Pakka

Krishak rights in favour of late Mataprasad stood decided in his favour in

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VANDANA

VERMA

Signing time: 04-Feb-26

7:12:36 PM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4383

3 WP-2959-2006

Civil Suit No.93-A/79 (Annexure P/2), the right of the petitioner flows from

the said finding and, therefore, the respondents were not justified in making

settlement of the said land in favour of the private respondents. On the said

premise, it is contended that the petition deserves to be allowed with the

reliefs claimed therein.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State, by

referring to the return filed, submits that there nothing on record to indicate

as to whether, the petitioner herein is the successor of late Mataprasad.

Moreover, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim or derive his rights on

findings recorded in a civil suit which ultimately stood dismissed.

Consequently, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner to question the

settlement proceedings conducted by the State authorities

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top