IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 21095 of 2018 HARMINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Rajnish Sharma and Shri Mudit Goswami – Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha – Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4/State.

None for respondents No. 5 to 7, though served.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 02.02.2026 Pronounced on : 27.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:

“a. That, the condition for registration of the decree be modified and the same be deleted from the judgment and decree as the same is in violation of the state notification and in alternate the respondent No.1 - 3 may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner for registration of the decree as directed by the trial Court in the notified village as per the condition of judgment decree passed by the learned civil court in the case of 32A/2016.

b. That, the condition put by the learned court below be set aside.

c. That, any other just and proper relief, warranting under the facts and circumstances of the case be also given to the petitioners, including cost, in the ends of justice.”

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition, as discernible from the pleadings and submissions advanced by the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners, are as under:

3.1. The grandfather of the petitioners, Late Shri Dharshan Singh, was permanent resident of Village Mahneked, Tahsil Patti, District Tarn Taran (Punjab), who moved to Village Chitahri, Tehsil Narwar, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in the year 1983. He purchased some lands in the name of his son. After the death of Late Shri Darshan Singh, certain disputes arose between the legal heirs which led to the filing of a civil suit by the petitioners bearing Civil Suit No.32A/2016 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land.

3.2. The said civil suit was disposed of by a compromise judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure P/1). Learned trial Court, in the compromise decree, enumerated the condition that the decree shall come into force only after its registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and upon payment of adequate stamp duty. Thereafter, the parties to the decree would be entitled to get their names mutated. It appears that the land in question forming the subject matter of the compromise judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 was hit by notifications dated 15.02.2000 and 18.02.2000 issued under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act of 1972”), falling within Village Chitahri forming notified area at Son Chiraiya National Park. Therefore, in view of the bar contained in Section 20 of the Act of 1972, the petitioners, apprehending denial of registration of the compromise judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 challenged the same in a first appeal to the extent that the said decree imposed a condition for coming into effect only after its registration. The First Appellate Court rejected the first appeal preferred by judgment and decree dated 23.09.2017 on the ground that the challenge is not sought to be made to the compromise judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 on merits but only a finding is sought to be challenged which may not be permissible. The First appellate Court also noted that the ground of challenge to the compromise judgment and decree did not fall within the ambit of Order 43 Rule 1-A of CPC and hence, declined interference. Thereafter, the instant wri