MP High Court Demands State Action on Encroachments Threatening Ancient Vishnu Temple

Jabalpur, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a firm stance on the preservation of the state's cultural heritage, directing the government to provide a detailed account of actions taken to protect the ancient Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir in Majhauli, Jabalpur. The court's intervention comes in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging severe neglect and unchecked encroachment on the land of the historically significant temple, which was declared a protected monument over four decades ago.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, has ordered the state to submit a comprehensive affidavit within four weeks. The court's directive, issued on October 6, is precise in its demands. "Respondent/State is directed to file an affidavit disclosing the current status of the subject temple as well as the subject land as also with regard to encroachment, if any, and action taken or proposed to be taken against the said encroachment," the order stated. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in the week commencing November 17, 2025.

The PIL, filed by Shravan Kumar Soni through his counsel, brings to light the deteriorating condition of a monument that holds significant archaeological value, highlighting a potential failure of statutory duties by state authorities.

The Core of the Dispute: A Protected Monument Under Siege

The crux of the petitioner's argument lies in the legal status of the Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir. According to the plea, the temple was officially designated as a protected monument by the state of Madhya Pradesh through a notification published on August 14, 1981. This declaration brought the temple and its surrounding area under the stringent purview of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).

The AMASR Act, a central piece of legislation for safeguarding India's cultural and historical legacy, imposes strict penalties for any act that destroys, removes, alters, defaces, or misuses a protected monument. Violators face potential imprisonment, fines, or both.

Critically, the petition highlights Rule 28 of the Act, which establishes a clear buffer zone around such monuments to prevent degradation from modern development. Specifically: - A prohibited area extends for a radius of 100 meters from the monument, where all construction and related activities are banned. - A regulated area covers the zone between 100 and 200 meters, where activities like construction and mining are restricted and require specific permissions.

The petitioner alleges that these statutory prohibitions have been flagrantly violated. The PIL contends that the protected land is being systematically encroached upon, with photographic evidence submitted to the court showing illegal shops operating within the prohibited and regulated zones. This commercial activity, the plea argues, not only disrespects the sanctity of the ancient site but also poses a direct threat to its structural integrity and historical context.

Allegations of State Inaction and Administrative Apathy

The petition paints a picture of prolonged administrative inertia. It states that while eviction notices were previously issued to the alleged encroachers, enforcement has been conspicuously absent. The situation was further complicated when one of the encroachers challenged the eviction in a Civil Court. While the suit was ultimately dismissed, the Civil Court reportedly made observations confirming the existence of encroachment.

Despite this judicial acknowledgment, the petitioner claims that both the state authorities and the local police failed to take any substantive action to clear the area. This failure to act forms the central grievance of the PIL, which contends that the very bodies entrusted with the monument's preservation have neglected their duties. The petitioner argues that this lack of enforcement has emboldened encroachers and allowed the situation to worsen over time.

"The police and state authorities have failed to preserve and conserve the said monument," the plea asserts, framing the issue as a systemic failure rather than an isolated incident.

Legal Implications and the Call for Central Intervention

This case underscores the critical role of the judiciary in enforcing heritage protection laws, particularly when executive bodies appear unresponsive. The High Court's directive for a status report is the first step in holding the state accountable for its statutory obligations under the AMASR Act. The affidavit submitted by the state will be a crucial document, expected to detail not only the extent of the encroachment but also the legal and administrative steps taken—or planned—to remedy the situation.

Legal experts note that such cases often test the efficacy of heritage laws against the pressures of local commercial interests and administrative lethargy. The court's decision to list the matter for a specific future date ensures continued judicial oversight and prevents the issue from being relegated to bureaucratic limbo.

In a significant prayer, the petitioner has urged the court to direct the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the premier central agency for archaeological research and protection, to declare the Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir an ancient monument under its own jurisdiction and take possession of the site. This reflects a lack of confidence in the state's ability to manage the monument and a belief that the ASI's expertise and resources are necessary for its "better conservation." Whether the court will entertain this prayer depends heavily on the state's response and its demonstrated commitment to rectifying the situation.

As the legal community awaits the state's affidavit, this case serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing battle to protect India's invaluable archaeological treasures from the silent erosion of neglect and encroachment. The High Court's next hearing will be pivotal in determining the future of the Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir and setting a precedent for the enforcement of monument protection laws across the state.

Case: Shravan Kumar Soni v State [WP 1563/2018] Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal