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

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6249 of 2026 GOKUL BAI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Krishna Kartikey Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.K.Agrawal - 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 seeks the following reliefs:

"(a) That, respondents No.2 & 3 may kindly be directed to remove all the encroachment form (sic:from) the land of the petitioner exercising the power wasted (sic: vested) in the authority and give possession to the petitioner.

(b) That, respondent may also be directed to recover the loss caused to the land and petitioner by the unauthorized occupants and compensate the petitioner.

(c) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband, namely Kaluram s/o Mangliya was the owner and Bhumiswami of land bearing Survey No.256/2 admeasuring 1.00 hectares, situated at Village Rupanagar Bahria, Panchayat Essagarh, District Ashoknagar (M.P.). Earlier, some persons tried to forcibly dispossess the petitioner and her husband from the land in question, whereupon a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the husband of the petitioner against one Balbeer S/o Deewan Singh, Musab Singh, Prakash and the State of M.P. The said suit was decreed in favor of the husband of the petitioner vide judgment dated 24.07.2024, restraining the defendants therein from disturbing the possession of the petitioner.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequently, some other miscreants/private persons are trying to encroach upon the land of the petitioner and even some part of the land has been sold by such encroachers. Therefore, the cause to file the instant writ petition accrued. He further submits that aggrieved by the encroachment made on the petitioner's land by these private persons/miscreants, the petitioner submitted several representations to the authorities, but the same have not been considered and no adequate protection has been provided to her. Therefore, the reliefs as claimed in the present petition deserve to be granted.

4. ​Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5​ . It is an admitted fact, as discernible from the pleadings made in the petition and the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that certain private persons who are not even named in the petition are alleged to be encroaching upon the land of the petitioner. The representation (Annexure-P/6) filed by the petitioner indicates that a part of the land has allegedly been sold by such encroachers. In these circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the State authorities to protect her properties from such private persons.

6​ . It has been also fairly submitted by counsel appearing for the petitioner that the present encroachers are not the same persons against whom the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2024 was passed in favor of the husband of the petitioner. ​

7. The issue as to whether a direction to the administration can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect private property of the petitioner from alleged encroachers, particularly when such dispute falls within the realm of property/civil dispute between the private persons, has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.R. Murlidharan and Others vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 501. The Apex Court, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 of the said judgment, has held as under:

"12. It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for