IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4019 of 2024 RAMNARESH MISHRA AND OTHERS Versus WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kailash Dev Singh - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Dy. Solicitor General for respondent No.1.

Shri D.P. Sharma - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court dated 30.04.2024 and by the appellate Court dated 20.06.2024, whereby the application for temporary injunction had been rejected by the trial Court and the rejection order has been confirmed by the appellate Court. 2. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have gravely erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction which was filed by the petitioners. It is argued that the petitioners have filed a civil suit for enforcing the right of way to access their land and the said right of way ought to have been protected by the trial Court and the appellate Court by granting temporary injunction so as to secure the right of way.

3 . Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.1/West Central Railway has vehemently argued that part of the land of petitioners had been acquired in the year 1985 and Railway Line and Railway Station at Rewa have been constructed on the said land, so also certain facilities ancillary to Railway Line and Railway Station have been constructed thereupon. The petitioners are seeking a right of way from the residential colony of Railway employees, which cannot be granted because it would expose the residential colony to insecurity and residential colony being part and parcel of Railway facility and connected to operation of Railway Line and Railway Station, the trial Court and the appellate Court have not erred in refusing temporary injunction and grant of such temporary injunction could have jeopardised the safety and security of residential colony of the Railways, and adverse affect on Railway operations.

4. Upon hearing the counsel of the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that it has been contended by the petitioners in the plaint that certain lands were acquired in the year 1985 for the purpose of construction of Railway Line and Railway Station at Rewa. However, some land of the plaintiffs remained in the possession and title of the plaintiffs and when the Railways have constructed the residential colony on the acquired land and are erecting a boundary wall to secure the residential colony, then the access of the remaining land of the petitioners/plaintiffs would be cut off and closed. Therefore, the temporary injunction ought to have been granted to secure the right of way of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

5. A temporary injunction has been sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs restraining any construction of boundary wall on a patch of land 90 meters long and 15 meters wide so that the right of way of the petitioners to their remaining land could be secured.

6. The counsel for the petitioners had relied on a google map to contend that by construction of the boundary wall, the access to the remaining land of the petitioners/plaintiffs would be cut off and that the said access was being used as a traditional path since last more than 35 years. Per contra, the counsel for the Railways has also produced across the Bar, another google map for perusal of this Court, which shows a zoomed out map showing larger area and by showing that map, it has been contended that in fact there is an alternative road to access the land area behind the Railway Colony and the petitioners being owner of land behind the Railway colony need not demand way only from the Railway Colony to access their land.

7. This Court refrains to deal into the question of truthfulness of either of the two google maps. However, even from the google map shown by the petiti