Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Relief Against Railway Eviction Amidst Waqf Property Dispute

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has slammed the brakes on attempts to stall railway eviction proceedings through overlapping land claims, ruling that litigants cannot 'approbate and reprobate' by suppressing past judicial findings on land titles. In a firm stand against strategic litigation, the Court upheld the dismissal of interim protection for occupants facing eviction from alleged railway land, emphasizing that the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Constitution of India cannot be used to correct plausible factual determinations by lower authorities.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt heard the matter involving a challenge to an order by the Principal District Judge, Ujjain. The petitioners had sought to stay an eviction order issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, arguing that the subject land was part of a pending dispute before the Waqf Tribunal.

Key Takeaways

Constructive Res Judicata in Land Disputes

Litigants are barred from re-agitating land title issues that have already been adjudicated in previous rounds of litigation, preventing endless cycles of claims over the same property.

Supervisory Limits Under Article 227

High Courts will not act as courts of first appeal or reappreciate evidence unless there is a patent perversity or a jurisdictional error that shocks the conscience of the court.

Title Predominance in PPE Act Proceedings

While a Waqf Tribunal has specific jurisdiction, an Estate Officer's proceedings under the PPE Act are valid when title rights have been previously settled by competent judicial authorities.

Court's Rationale on Overlapping Survey Numbers

The petitioners contended that land identified as Survey No. 1937 by the Railways actually overlapped with Waqf property in Survey Nos. 1938 and 1939. However, the Court found these allegations speculative. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The petitioners themselves admit that the Waqf Notification of 1985 only notifies 9743 sq. ft. of land falling in Survey No. 1939 as Waqf Land, yet the petitioners have raised claim to certain extent of Survey No. 1938... the Commissioner's final report clearly indicates that petitioners have encroached upon Survey No. 1937 which is owned by the respondents."

The Court further noted that the petitioners had suppressed the history of Case No. 53/2007, where the title rights of the Railways were already confirmed. The Court remarked: "petitioners through clever drafting with malafide have suppressed the Case No. 53/2007 (UOI v. Waqf Board and the present Petitioner No. 2) wherein the Waqf Tribunal has held that the title rights of the Survey No. 1938 and Survey No. 1939 (barring the 9743 sq. ft. of Waqf Land) is with the Respondents."

The Court has the following directions:

"In the result petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed."

Ratio

The High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Constitution of India is not appellate in nature and cannot be invoked to substitute a subordinate court's reasonable view with another possible interpretation. Furthermore, a party is precluded by the principle of constructive res judicata and the doctrine of 'approbate and reprobate' from re-litigating settled title issues by merely alleging physical overlaps in survey numbers without substantive evidence.

Background

The dispute centered on land near Ujjain Railway Station. The Railways issued an eviction order under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on June 11, 2026, directing the petitioners to vacate within three days. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 along with a stay application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The District Judge rejected the stay on June 16, 2026, noting that the Waqf Tribunal's existing status quo order applied to different survey numbers.

The petitioners approached the High Court arguing that the Estate Officer was improperly determining title questions currently pending before the Waqf Tribunal. They relied on Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 to claim a bar on civil proceedings. The Respondents countered that the title had already been settled in a 2010 ruling, which was upheld by the High Court in 2011. The Court relied on Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Vs. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. ( "2026 SCC Online SC 745": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 374) and Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil ( "2010(8) SCC 329": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 817) to define the narrow scope of Article 227 interference, ultimately finding no perversity in the lower court's refusal to grant a stay.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. PETITION No. 3843 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:27794
Case Title: Waris Khan And Others Versus The Divisional Railway Manager And Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Gaurav Chhabra - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Romesh Dave - Advocate for the respondent/Union of India

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 25939