Writ Petition Against Private Persons Not Maintainable; Civil Suit Is Proper Remedy: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to grant interim protection to a farmer who alleged that illegal sand mining activities were being carried out on his agricultural land in Bhind district, holding that disputes involving alleged encroachment by private individuals must be pursued before a civil court rather than through a writ petition.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Deepak Khot passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Shyam Sundar alias Bholaram. The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking directions to authorities to stop alleged illegal sand mining around Mehda Ghat in Village Mehda, Tehsil Raun, District Bhind, and to protect his agricultural land bearing Survey No. 523 from further damage.

The petition also sought action against persons allegedly involved in illegal mining activities and threats allegedly extended to the petitioner.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Vineet Saxena and Satendra Singh Rajawat argued that certain private individuals had encroached upon the petitioner’s land and were carrying out mining operations. The State was represented by Government Advocate Rajendra Jain.

While examining the matter, the High Court noted a significant defect in the petition. The Bench observed that the persons who had allegedly encroached upon the land had not been made parties to the proceedings. The Court further held that a writ petition against private individuals is generally not maintainable, particularly when the dispute essentially concerns the violation of private civil rights.

The Bench observed that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy available under law by instituting a civil suit before the competent court. The judges noted that the allegations raised by the petitioner involved questions relating to possession and encroachment, issues that are ordinarily adjudicated by civil courts after examining evidence.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was prepared to file a civil suit but requested the High Court to protect his possession in the meantime until such proceedings could be initiated.

However, the Court declined the request. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others (2010), the Bench reiterated that a writ court cannot grant interim relief as the sole and final relief after deciding not to entertain a petition on merits.

Quoting the settled legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court noted that “the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant.”

The Bench further emphasized that where a litigant is directed to approach another competent forum, the writ court should not grant temporary protection merely for the period required to move that forum and seek appropriate relief there.

Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court observed, “Where the Writ Court has refused to entertain the writ petition and has relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before any other different forum, then writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to pass an interim order.”

In view of this principle, the judges rejected the petitioner’s request for temporary injunction and protection of possession pending the filing of a civil suit.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies before the competent court.

At the same time, the Bench clarified that any future civil proceedings should be decided independently on the basis of evidence produced before the trial court. The judges specifically directed that the civil court should not be influenced by the High Court’s refusal to entertain the writ petition.

“It is made clear that, in case if a civil suit is filed, then the civil Court shall decide the civil suit strictly in accordance with evidence which would come on record and should not get influenced or prejudiced by the non-entertainment of this writ petition by this Court,” the Bench stated.

Case Title: Shyam Sundar @ Bholaram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: June 10, 2026

Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Deepak Khot