This order does not itself evict any person, does not declare the monument under the 1958 Act, and does not decide any individual encroacher's title or possession; those questions sit in the eviction proceedings and the civil-court record, and the 1958 Act declaration remains open for an application to the concerned authority.
- Case
- Shravan Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
- Court
- High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:MPHC-JBP:87053
- Bench
- Alpesh Y. Kogje, CJ; Vivek Jain, J
- Judgment by
- Alpesh Y. Kogje, CJ
- Case numbers
- W.P. No. 1563 of 2018
- Outcome
- Final order disposing of W.P. No. 1563 of 2018 with observations and a time-bound direction; the eviction proceedings are to conclude as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from 29 October 2026.
Time-bound direction, not an eviction order itself
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has disposed of a 2018 writ petition concerning encroachment at the Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir site at Majhauli in Jabalpur district, directing the authorities to conclude the eviction proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from 29 October 2026.
The order, passed by Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje with Justice Vivek Jain, does not itself evict any person or decide any individual encroacher's rights. It records that action against the encroachment had already been initiated after civil-court proceedings, and adds a time-bound programme for concluding the proceedings that are already under way.
The petitioner's separate prayer for a declaration of the monument under the central Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, was left open: the petitioner may make an application to the concerned authority if scope for one is available under that Act as on date.
A protected monument, and construction in its periphery
The monument at the centre of the petition is the Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir at Majhauli in Jabalpur district. The petitioner, Shravan Kumar Soni, said the monument had been declared protected under the Madhya Pradesh Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964, under which construction in its periphery is regulated, but that the authorities had taken no care of it.
The complaint, as recorded in the order, was of unbridled encroachment and construction within the periphery of the monument site. The petition had been pending since 2018, and the court noted that the battle over the site had been going on for many years.
That long pendency is the context for the operative direction: rather than reopening the underlying disputes, the court pressed for the proceedings already initiated to be brought to a conclusion within a stated, preferred period.
Four reliefs, from declaration to punishment
The petition sought four things. First, a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India to declare the monument an ancient monument under the 1958 Act and to take possession of it. Second, a direction to the state authorities to immediately remove the encroachment over the monument site, in terms of the decree of the civil court and the 1964 Act and its rules.
Third, the petitioner asked that the encroachers be dealt with and punished under the 1964 Act and its rules. Fourth, the petition sought any other relief the court considered fit, with costs.
The order deals with these reliefs in two different ways: the eviction limb is answered through the proceedings already initiated and the new time-bound direction, while the 1958 Act declaration limb is left open for an application to the concerned authority. The punishment prayer received no separate direction and stands disposed of with the petition under para 8.
BANTHRY ANALYSISTwo statutes, two different routes
Two statutes frame the case, and the order keeps them distinct. The 1964 Act is the state law under which, as the petitioner put it, the monument stands protected, with construction in its periphery regulated. The 1958 Act is the central law under which a monument may be declared an ancient monument, with possession following from that declaration.
The distinction matters for what the court could and did do. Protection under the state Act was the basis of the complaint about encroachment and construction in the periphery. Declaration under the central Act, by contrast, is a step that must be sought from the concerned authority under that Act, which is why the court left that prayer open instead of granting it itself.
The order also records that the petitioner had not even brought the 1958 Act declaration to the notice of the concerned authority under that Act. That omission is part of the reason the declaration question remains open rather than decided.
Proceedings already initiated, so the court pressed for speed
On the encroachment limb, the respondents' reply, as recorded in the order, was that the alleged encroachers had been before the civil court to protect their possession, that the civil court has now decided, and that steps were initiated after its orders. Notices under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code had been issued, due process had commenced, and the encroachers had been called to remain present before the authority on 5 October 2026.
On that record the court held that the grievance about encroachment had already been addressed in accordance with law, in the sense that action had been initiated. The petition therefore did not need a fresh direction to start proceedings; what it needed, on the petitioner's own submission, was a time-bound programme for concluding them.
Accepting that submission, and noting that the dispute had run for many years, the court directed the authorities to conclude the eviction proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of the order.
BANTHRY ANALYSISDisposed with observations, and two doors left open
The operative part of the order has three elements. First, the time-bound direction: the authorities are to conclude the eviction proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from 29 October 2026. The order states no calendar end-date beyond that preference, and it does not fix a date on which any particular person must vacate.
Second, the 1958 Act declaration is left open: the petitioner may make an application if scope is available under the 1958 Act as on date. Third, the petition stands disposed of with the observations recorded, leaving it open for the petitioner to redress any remaining grievance elsewhere.
The disposal is therefore procedural rather than conclusive on the merits of any individual claim to possession. The eviction proceedings themselves, including the due process already commenced under the Land Revenue Code, are where individual rights will be determined.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: disposal with a direction is not a decision on title
This order is a useful example of a writ court managing a long-running grievance without deciding the underlying private disputes. The civil court had already decided the possession litigation, and the executive had already commenced proceedings; the High Court's contribution was to put a preferred clock on their conclusion.
Note the word preferably. The three-month period is expressed as a preference, not as an unconditional deadline with a stated consequence for breach. Students should not paraphrase it as a hard deadline, and should not describe the order as an eviction order: no person is directed by this order to vacate by a particular date.
Note also the division of labour between the two statutes. A state-law protected status supports regulation of the periphery, while a central-law declaration is a separate administrative step that must be invoked before the concerned authority. A writ petition cannot substitute for that application where, as here, it was never made.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the court direct a time-bound conclusion of proceedings rather than ordering eviction itself?
- What is the difference, in this order, between protection under the 1964 Act and declaration under the 1958 Act?
- What does the word preferably add to, or withhold from, the three-month direction?
