JABALPUR, India, July 28 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on June 27:

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal.

2. It is contended that appellants were not made parties to the writ petition and as such were unaware of passing of impugned order.

3. We are satisfied that appellants have duly explained the reason for not approaching the Court within the period of limitation. In view of the fact that appellants were unaware of passing of order and the appeal was filed as soon as they became aware of the impugned order, there is no delay in filing the appeal.

4. The application is accordingly disposed of.

WA No.659 of 2025

1. Appellants impugn order dated 04.12.2024 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 has been allowed and a direction issued to the Tehsildar to implement order dated 28.02.2023 of the Tehsildar whereby proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 were directed to be taken.

2. A complaint was filed on 10.08.2022 by respondent No.5 with regard to alleged illegal encroachment of public land by construction of a shop. On the complaint, proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 were initiated and an ex-parte order was passed on 28.02.2023. Thereafter, despite the order being passed, as per respondent No.5, no action was taken. Subject writ petition being WP No.37206/2024 was filed contending that though an order has been passed, no action was being taken in respect of said property. Writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 directing the authorities to implement the order dated 28.02.2023 and remove the encroachment.

3. Subject writ appeal has been filed by one- Ku. Shagun Dubey contending that she is a minor of 10 years of age and order dated 28.02.2023 has been passed against her ex-parte. It is contended that she is not the encroacher of the subject property and the order has been passed without even impleading the minor through the natural guardian. It is further contended that no notice was issued to the minor before the order was passed by the Tehsildar.

4. Perusal of the complaint dated 10.08.2022, shows that the complaint was filed by respondent No.5 against alleging encroachment by Laxmikant Dubey, Tarunendra Dubey and Sachin Dubey. There was no complaint against Ku. Shagun Dubey. Though in the complaint, it was contending that business activity being carried out was in the name of Shagun Mobile Shop. The complaint discloses that alleged encroachment was by three individuals and not by the appellant herein.

5. Order of Tehsildar dated 28.02.2023 records that Patwari had filed a report stating that encroachment was done by Ku. Shagun D/o Laxmikant Dubey. It appears that a proper enquiry was not conducted by Patwari before submitting the report as it is impossible for the appellant No.1 Ku. Shagun to be an encroacher on the subject property, particularly, in view of the fact that no complaint was filed against appellant No.1. Complaint was filed against appellant No.2 - Sachin Dubey, however, no proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar against appellant No.1 or other alleged encroachers.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WA/659/WA_659_2025_FinalOrder_27-06-2025_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.