PIL Cannot Reopen Land Deals Settled For 50 Years Without Prima Facie Fraud, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking an inquiry into 4.40 acres of land in Dindori said to be government grazing land, holding that an old revenue entry cannot be used to unsettle registered transactions that have stood for more than five decades.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Deepak Khot ruled that the petitioner "has failed to establish any prima facie case warranting interference in the present PIL." It added that "no ground is made out for directing any fresh revenue, departmental or criminal inquiry."

The petition was filed by Anil Patel, who described himself as a local journalist, editor of daily newspaper Hindu Sahastradhara and a public-spirited citizen. It concerned Khasra Nos. 72/1-Kha (1.70 acres), 72/1-Ga (2.30 acres) and 72/1-Gha (0.40 acres) in Village Subkhar Maal, Nagar Parishad Dindori.

Patel argued that the Misal Bandobast of 1929-30 and the Adhikar Abhilekh of 1954-55 recorded the land as government grazing land, or Charnoi. He alleged that private respondents, in collusion with revenue officials, fraudulently manipulated the entries to build a college run by Rama Devi Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti. He sought an investigation, cancellation of their ownership and departmental action against officials.

The State denied the allegations. It said Survey No. 72/1 (22.84 acres) was recorded as grazing or waste land in 1929-30, but by 1954-55 only Survey No. 72/1-Ka (18.44 acres) carried that description. The three smaller parcels were recorded in the names of agriculturists as Bhumiswami. An inquiry found they were not grazing land from 1954-55 onwards, and the proceedings were closed on July 26, 2023.

Respondent No. 6 told the Court that the ancestors of the private respondents bought 1.70 acres through registered sale deeds in 1965. A partition followed in 1985. In 2006, Badri Prasad Bilaiya gifted 0.40 acre to the Samiti, and the land was diverted for educational use by an order dated June 27, 2007. It denied that the college stands on 4.40 acres.

The bench agreed. It found that "the record discloses a continuous chain of transfer of the disputed land commencing several decades ago." The recorded holders, Sonulal, Bhaddelal and Mulai Ram, sold the land by registered deeds on May 26, 1965, and the buyers' names were mutated on August 8, 1966. The material, the Court said, does not disclose "any recent or clandestine usurpation of Government land."

The Court noted that Patel produced no cogent material to show that the deeds, mutation, partition or transfer were forged or procured by fraud or collusion. The Collector's inquiry report of September 14, 2018 did not support his claim that the land remained Charnoi since 1959. The bench observed that the petition was "engineered on a report prepared by the Revenue Inspector" after a news item in a local newspaper of which the petitioner is the editor, while a committee constituted by the Collector had found that the land was not Government land.

The judgment leans on Supreme Court rulings on PIL limits, including Neetu v. State of Punjab, Prem Porwal v. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati and Esteem Properties v. Chetan Kamble. Citing Prem Porwal, the bench recalled that Article 226 cannot be used to decide title.

"Merely relying upon an old revenue entry of 1929-1930 and seeking to reopen a chain of transactions which commenced in 1965 cannot constitute sufficient ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction," the Court held.

It added: "A PIL cannot be permitted to unsettle rights flowing from registered transactions which have remained operative and acted upon for more than five decades."

The Court dismissed the PIL, disposed of all pending applications and made no order as to costs.

Advocates Harry Bamoriya and Rohit Nanepag appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate Dr. Siddharth Singh Chouhan represented the State. Senior Advocate Manoj Kumar Sharma, with advocates Divya Krishna Bilaiya, Deepak Sahu and Aqsa Mukarram, appeared for respondents No. 6 to 12.

Case Title: Anil Patel vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Order Date: September 19, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Deepak Khot