Contract Claims Not For Writ Courts: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Survey In Land Restoration Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition seeking enforcement of contractual obligations arising out of a mining agreement, holding that disputed questions of fact and contractual claims cannot ordinarily be adjudicated under Article 226 jurisdiction, while still directing a limited administrative remedy to address the grievance of affected petitioners.

In a writ petition filed by Mohan Gadari and others against South Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Bench of Justice Deepak Khot was confronted with allegations that agricultural land had been rendered uncultivable due to depillaring and underground mining operations, and that the respondent company had failed to restore the land despite a specific contractual obligation. The petitioners also sought compensation, rehabilitation benefits, and alternative land under statutory frameworks.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Puneet S. Chaturvedi argued that an agreement dated June 25, 2006 clearly obligated the respondent company to restore the land to a cultivable condition within three years. The failure to do so, it was contended, deprived the petitioners of their livelihood and violated their constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 300-A. Invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation, it was urged that the villagers had acted on the assurance that their land would be restored after mining operations.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Anoop Nair, assisted by Advocate Devyani Singh, submitted that the land had already been restored and that the petitioners had failed to file any rejoinder rebutting this assertion. It was further argued that the dispute essentially arose out of a contract and involved factual controversies that could not be resolved in writ proceedings.

The Court, after examining the record, noted that the photographs relied upon by the petitioners did not conclusively establish whether the land had been restored to its original condition. It observed that “parties have made allegations and counter-allegations,” and held that such contested factual issues are not amenable to adjudication under writ jurisdiction.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court relied on precedent to underscore that “a writ of mandamus would not ordinarily issue for enforcing the terms and conditions of a contract qua contract,” and that writ courts are not meant to function as forums for specific performance of contractual obligations. The Bench emphasised that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to public law elements and cannot be expanded to resolve private contractual disputes involving disputed facts.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the socio-economic context of the dispute, noting that the petitioners were “poor villagers” whose livelihood depended on agricultural land. It also recognised that the respondent company, being a public authority within the meaning of Article 12, is expected to act fairly and fulfil its obligations.

Significantly, the Court rejected the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the facts of the case. It held that such expectation cannot be sustained indefinitely, particularly when the agreement itself provided a mechanism whereby the petitioners could undertake restoration and claim reimbursement. The Bench clarified that legitimate expectation is not a legal right but merely an expectation of a benefit, and cannot independently ground judicial relief unless linked to arbitrariness under Article 14.

In a calibrated approach balancing judicial restraint with administrative accountability, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction permitting the petitioners to submit a representation before the competent authority. The authority has been directed to conduct an inspection through an independent surveyor in the presence of the petitioners and take a decision based on the findings.

The Court further ordered that if the land is found not to have been restored in accordance with the agreement, necessary steps must be taken to make it cultivable within three months. Conversely, if restoration is found to have already been completed, the authority must pass a “speaking order” addressing the petitioners’ claims.

Case Title: Mohan Gadari and Others v. The South Eastern Coal Field Limited and Others

Date of Order: April 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot