MP High Court Refuses To Protect Shyamla Hills Occupants From Eviction, Says No Legal Or Forest Rights Established Over Govt Land

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to grant further protection against eviction of a group of residents occupying the government land in Bhopal's Shyamla Hills area, observing that the occupants failed to establish any legal, tenancy, ownership or forest rights over the disputed property. The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Vivek Jain observed:"we are of the opinion that when petitioners are neither the allottees of the said land nor they have any legal right and further they themselves admits that they are claiming their title through Shri Khurshid Ahmed and they had already lost the suit before the learned trial Court, for which appeal was filed in the year 1997, before the High Court and since 1997, for last 29 years, no indulgence has been shown by the High Court in the First Appeal, we are afraid that petitioners having failed to establish any of their Fundamental Rights over the land in question contained in Survey No.1413/1, no equity exists in favour of the petitioners so to call us to show indulgence, therefore, we are unable to show any indulgence in the matter". Emphasizing the State's obligation to rehabilitate displaced people, the court further noted;"we are conscious of the fact that though equity is not existing in favour of petitioners, but fair play demands that State should provide basic amenities as per its policy for rehabilitation of persons who are going to be uprooted. Government shall provide those amenities tomorrow itself, if eviction is to take place tomorrow or on the following day as and when eviction takes place. We have tacit consent of Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General for the State, to this order of ours that State shall provide all assistance for rehabilitation of uprooted persons". The controversy traces its origin to an eviction order passed by the Naib Tahsildar in Bhopal in August 2025, against the residents occupying a patch of land in Shyamla Hills. The authorities treated the occupants as encroachers on government land and initiated revenue proceedings accordingly. Aggrieved, the residents approached the Sub Divisional Officer in Bhopla, who also dismissed the appeal on December 26, 225. The residents subsequently moved to the High Court, challenging both the eviction proceedings and the order of the appellate authority. At the earlier stage of the proceedings, the coordinate bench had granted interim protection restraining the authorities from taking coercive steps, including demolition of the residential structure. The counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the eviction proceedings were contrary to the law and violated the principles of due process. According to the petitioners, they and their families have been residing in the area for nearly 7 decades, with several of them belonging to the Scheduled Tribe communities. The residents contended that the land was recorded as "Chhote Jhad ka Jangal" in revenue records and, therefore, possessed the character of forest land. The petitioners argued that they qualified as traditional forest dwellers under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and had already submitted applications seeking recognition of their forest rights through the State's Van Mitra portal. The petitioner further maintained that their claims remained pending and until such claims were adjudicated, they could not be dispossessed from the land. The Single bench found that the petitioners had failed to establish any prima facie legal right over the disputed land. The court noted that the documents on record did not demonstrate possession of the disputed survey number. The Single Bench further relied on a communication from the Conservator of Forest on January 5, 2026, which stated that the disputed land was neither a reserved forest nor a protected forest and did not fall under the management of the Forest Department. Challenging the order, the residents approached the Division Bench, contending that crucial aspects relating to their status as forest dwellers had not been adequately considered. The bench noted that despite repeatedly seeking documentary evidence demonstrating ownership rights, leasehold rights, allotment orders, tenancy rights or any other legally recognized entitlement to remain on the land. The division bench concluded that the petitioners failed to establish any legal or fundamental right and held that no equitable grounds existed for continuing judicial protection against eviction. The bench directed; "With the aforesaid, we dispose of the interim prayer and, accordingly, Writ Appeal, because nothing more survives for adjudication in this Writ Appeal. We have been informed that Writ Petition is still pending". Case Title: Maan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WA-1442-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 190For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma with Advocate Qazi FakhruddinFor State: Advocate General Prashant SinghClick...

MP High Court Refuses To Protect Shyamla Hills Occupants From Eviction, Says No Legal Or Forest Rights Established Over Govt Land

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

MP High Court Refuses To Protect Shyamla Hills Occupants From Eviction, Says No Legal Or Forest Rights Established Over Govt Land

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers