Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a land dispute case wherein a suit was filed alleging violation of the Court’s status quo order, the Single Judge Bench of G.S. Alhuwalia, J., opined that the Trial Court Judge’s conduct of delaying the inquiry report and then submitting the spot inspection report without answering the Court’s query required an inquiry. Accordingly, the Court sent the case details to the Registrar General to be forwarded to the Chief Justice. The Court further directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind (the Principal Judge), to assign the land dispute case to some other Civil Judge so that the enquiry could be conducted as per the directions given by the coordinate Bench.
Background
On 15 March 2013, the Court herein directed the parties to maintain the status quo (the status quo order); however, the respondents started raising construction over the disputed property. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present petition alleging defiance of the status quo order.
Previously, a coordinate Bench, via order dated 4 April 2024 (the enquiry order), held that the allegations required enquiry and evidence. And directed the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry regarding violation of the status quo order by raising construction on the disputed property, and parties were directed to remain present in person before the Trial Court. This enquiry was directed to be completed within four months.
On 8 October 2025, it was found that the enquiry report had not been received and, accordingly, the Trial Court was directed to immediately send the enquiry report, but it was not sent. On 12 November 2025, the Principal Judge was again directed to issue necessary directions to the Trial Court to not show any lethargic attitude towards the directions given by the Court, specifically when more than 1.5 years had passed. The Trial Court was directed to ensure that the enquiry report reached the Court by 10 January 2026.
Thereafter, the Trial Court did not conduct any enquiry and obtained a spot inspection report from the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, and forwarded the same to the Court. Accordingly, on 19 January 2026, the Court directed the Principal Judge to submit a report after seeking an explanation from the Trial Court. If the Principal Judge opined that the Trial Court acted in complete defiance of the enquiry order, then he could seek an explanation from the Trial Court and forward the same to the Court.
The Court further reiterated that whenever any report is sent by the Trial Court, it must be routed through the Principal Judge of the concerned district. However, it appeared that the Trial Court had forwarded the report directly to the Court, which did not give any opportunity to the Principal Judge to go through the report and to find out whether the report was in accordance with the enquiry order. Thus, the Principal Judge was directed to comment upon forwarding of the report by the Trial Court directly to the Court without routing through the Office of the Principal Judge.
Subsequently, the Principal Judge filed a detailed enquiry report stating that the Trial Court was negligent in discharging its duties. The Trial Court Judge also gave his explanation and tendered an apology for his mistake.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the enquiry report filed by the Principal Judge and the explanation given by the trial Judge, the Court stated that the trial Judge’s explanation was unsatisfactory because he did not assign any reasons for not recording the evidence of witnesses before submitting the report. The Court added that although the Trial Court might be right in obtaining a spot inspection report, that report should have been considered after recording evidence of witnesses, and the Trial Court should have concluded whether the status quo order was breached by any of the parties; however, nothing of that sort was done. Apart from that, the Trial Court kept the matter pending for a long time. Thus, the Court held that the trial Judge’s conduct required an inquiry.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Office to send a copy of all the order-sheets of the Court, the enquiry report submitted by Principal Judge, explanation given by trial Judge, and the communication of the Trial Court seeking extension of time to complete the inquiry, to the Registrar General for placing before the Chief Justice for necessary information and any disciplinary action, if required, against the trial judge.
Since the Trial Court did not submit the enquiry report as required by the Court vide the enquiry order, the Court directed the Principal Judge to assign the land dispute case to some other Civil Judge so that the enquiry could be conducted as per the directions given by the Coordinate Bench in the enquiry order. The Court further directed the parties to remain present before the Principal Judge in this regard. If any of the parties fail to appear before the Principal Judge on 17 March 2026, then no further notice shall be required to be issued to such absentee, and it shall be presumed that the absentee has nothing to say in the matter.
Additionally, the Court directed that the new Trial Court shall complete the enquiry within four months and not rely upon the previous report of the Executive Engineer, wherein the spot inspection appeared to have been done in the absence of the parties. The new Trial Court shall also have the liberty to direct the appointment of a local Commissioner, if required. However, if any local Commissioner is appointed, then the Trial Court shall fix the date for carrying out spot inspection so that nobody can make a complaint that spot inspection was done behind his back.
The case was listed for 20-8-2026 for consideration of the enquiry report.
[Ashok Kumar v. Meera Devi, MCC No. 39 of 2022, decided on 17-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Anand V. Bhardwaj
For the respondent: Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya