Long Possession Of Public Land Without Title Doesn't Confer Right To Seek Injunction: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Friday (January 9), dismissed Public Health Engineering Department official's plea claiming possession over public land, holding that mere long possession over land without any lawful authority does not confer any enforceable rights or entitle the person to protection orders.

The bench of Justice Hirdesh highlighted;

"a person who does not have legal possession over the disputed property is an unauthorized occupant or trespasser, and a trespasser has no right to seek or obtain a temporary injunction in respect of such property. Admittedly, the petitioner has no legal right or title over the disputed land, which is public property. Mere long possession, without any lawful authority, does not confer any enforceable right so as to grant protection by way of injunction".

The petition was filed against the State in respect to a piece of land situated at Ganeshganj Marg, Lohangipur, District Vidisha.

The petitioner contended that after his appointment in 1982, he had allegedly obtained consent from the department to construct three tin-shed rooms measuring 8 ft × 8 ft each at his own expense on vacant land situated near the Department quarters. He also claimed that an electricity meter had been installed in his name at the said premises.

It was further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on May 30, 2020 and vacated the departmental quarters on June 19, 2020, after handing over the keys to the PHE Department, pursuant to which a 'no dues certificate' was issued.

However, after vacating the said quarters, the petitioner and his family continued to reside in the disputed structure.

While conceding that the petitioner did not have any legal title over the disputed land, his counsel argued that continued possession since 1982 entitled him to protection. It was contended that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in rejecting his application for a temporary injunction.

The counsel for the State argued that the petitioner had no legal right to occupy public premises and was therefore not entitled to any interim relief.

The bench reiterated the settled legal position that a person who does not have any legal possession over the land is either an unauthorised occupant or trespasser. Therefore, such a person has no right to seek a temporary injunction with regard to the land.

Thus, the bench held that merely because the petitioner had long possession over the land, the same does not grant him any enforceable right over the same. Therefore, the bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Maharaj Singh Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh [MP-7495-2025]

For Petitioner: Advocate Arman Ali Khan

For State: Government Advocate Rinkesh Goyal

Click here to read/download the Order