MP High Court Allows Criminal, Departmental Action Against Revenue Officials For Sleeping Over Govt Land Case For 12 Years

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed the State to take departmental and criminal action against negligent Revenue Officials, who, despite knowledge of a civil dispute over government land, failed to follow the suit diligently and thereafter filed an appeal after 12 years. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 231]

The bench of Justice Vivek Jain set aside an order of the Appellate Court condoning the delay in the State's appeal, and emphasised the public trust doctrine, elucidating that the State holds public land as a trustee for citizens and is duty-bound to protect such resources. It was observed that public servants act as the "heart and life of the State".

Therefore, the bench held:

"The concerned authority of the State is therefore, set at liberty to initiate suitable departmental and criminal action against the then Collector, Additional Collectors, Deputy Collectors, Tahsildars, Naib Tahsildars, Revenue Inspectors, Patwaris etc. for they having exhibited their utter negligence in pursuing a case involving government land and having breached the trust of the public of the State, because the State claims ownership in lands for public good and holds the lands in Trust for the general public. The State having breached public trust in terms of the doctrine of public trust, the concerned authority of the State is at liberty to initiate criminal and departmental action against its erring and negligent officers". 

A civil revision was filed challenging the order of the Appellate Court of September 28, 2016, wherein the State's application for condoning the delay of 12 years was allowed. 

The counsel for the applicant argued that the State was duly served in the original suit, wherein a representation appeared for the State, but after some time, stopped appearing in the suit. The non-appearance led to an ex parte order, but an application under Order 9 Rule 7 was filed setting aside the ex parte order. Thereafter, a judgment and decree were passed.

The counsel for the State argued that the original suit was filed in 1996 and was rejected by an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which governs the rejection of a plaint. The said rejection was appealed by the plaintiff, which was allowed in February 2000, and the suit was restored. The State contended that in this confusion, the counsel could not appear in the trial court after remand, and since the disputed land is valuable government land, there should be some leniency in condoning the delay. 

The court noted that the original suit was filed in 1996 and subsequently dismissed by allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The application was challenged in an appeal by the present applicant and was allowed, remanding the matter back to the Civil Court. 

Further, the bench noted that the appeal was duly allowed in the presence of the State's counsel in the decree by the Appellate Court. The court, after going through the order sheets of the Trial Court after remand, noted that the parties had to appear before the Trial Court, but none appeared for the State. Later, the State's counsel filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, wherein the exparte proceedings were set aside. 

Thereafter, the State's counsel continued appearing before the Trial Court, but in February 2004, the counsel again stopped appearing, but the trial court continued despite the absence. The Trial Court passed the decree ex parte in June 2004. 

The appeal against the ex parte order was filed by the State after 12 years of delay in 2016, claiming that the officer-in-charge had no information regarding the pendency of the case. It was claimed that since the State's counsel stopped appearing before the Trial Court, it was obligated to issue a fresh notice to the State. However, no fresh notice was issued in the present matter.

The court noted that the State's application for condonation did not contain any plausible explanation for the delay. The bench emphasised that it was a case where the State was duly served and appeared in a few hearings.  Focusing on the prolonged period of 12 years, the court remarked;

"A litigant should know that when the rights are crystallised, and 12 years is a long period enough where the rights should be crystallised. The Appellate Court has mechanically condoned the delay of as long as 12 years in filing of the appeal by the State, though the State had full knowledge of pendency of the suit, it was earlier proceeded ex-parte, it applied for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, which was permitted, but then again the counsel for the State stopped appearing before the trial Court and for the next 12 years, no care was taken by any functionary of the State in pursuing proceedings of the trial court".  

Therefore, noting the conduct of the State officials, the court granted liberty to initiate departmental and criminal proceedings against the concerned officers for their prolonged negligence in handling litigation involving government land.  

Case Title: Ramrati v State of Madhya Pradesh, CR-47-2017

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 231

For Applicant: Advocate Kartik Dubey

For State: Government Advocate Aditya Choubey with Advocate KK Gautam 

Click here to read/download the Order