Indore (Madhya Pradesh): In a significant development in the ongoing land dispute involving Masjid Sadar Anjuman Isla-Ul-Muslimeen, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has upheld the dismissal of writ petition but granted one month’s protection to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal was hearing a writ appeal, filed against the February 27 order of the Single Bench that had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of title and availability of alternative statutory remedy.
Background of the dispute
The controversy stems from an order dated February 10, 2026, passed by the tehsildar under Sections 57 and 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), declaring the disputed land at CRP Line, Indore, as Government Nazul land and treating the petitioner committee as an unauthorized occupant. The committee was directed to remove the alleged encroachment within three days.
The petitioner, a registered Waqf committee managing a Masjid and Musafirkhana, claimed that the land bearing Survey No 12, admeasuring around 30,400 sq ft, is registered as Waqf property. It relied on historical possession since 1967, entries in revenue records, No Objection Certificates issued in 1981 and 1994, municipal building permissions granted in 1997 and 2003, and a loan sanctioned by the Central Waqf Council.
The State, however, maintained that the land forms part of Block Nos 6, 11 and 12, measuring approximately 40,000 sq ft, recorded as Government Nazul land, and that long possession does not confer ownership rights.
Single Bench refusal to entertain writ petition
The Single Bench had held that the matter involved complex and disputed questions of title and demarcation which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that writ proceedings are not suited for determination of ownership disputes requiring evidence and cross-examination.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate appellate forum under the MPLRC or competent civil/Waqf Tribunal, clarifying that no opinion was expressed on merits.
Division Bench observations
Before the Division Bench, senior advocate Ajay Bagadia, appearing for the appellant, submitted that while the petitioner was willing to avail the alternative remedy, certain observations made in the Single Bench order on merits could prejudice proceedings before the competent forum.
The State, represented by the additional advocate general, informed the court that demolition of the alleged illegal construction had commenced on the morning of February 28 and continued for nearly two hours before, upon oral request, seven days’ time was granted to the appellant to seek legal remedy.
Taking note of the submissions, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal with key directions:
The order of the Single Bench was upheld insofar as it relegated the appellant to avail alternative remedy.
Any observations made by the Writ Court on merits shall not influence the authority, forum or civil court while adjudicating the dispute.
The State is at liberty to contest the matter on merits before the appropriate forum.
Considering the upcoming Holi vacation and Eid festival, the Court extended the earlier seven-day period and granted one month’s time to the appellant to seek temporary injunction from the competent authority.
Till then, parties were directed to maintain status quo as on the date and time of the Division Bench order.
