Archive · 24 Aug 2026
Indore High Court Rejects State’s Six-Year-Late Dhar Land Appeal
A court case was about who should have their names recorded on a small piece of land in Dhar.
A lower court decided in favour of Brajesh Singh and others in 2017.
The State government knew about that decision but waited more than six years before filing an appeal.
It said officials needed time to obtain approvals and that public land was involved.
A district judge allowed the late appeal to proceed.
The Indore High Court disagreed and said government offices must follow the same time limits as everyone else.
It said administrative delays were not a good enough reason for such a long wait.
The High Court therefore cancelled the permission for the delay and rejected the State’s appeal.
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the State’s appeal after a delay of six years and two months.
The dispute concerns a 0.089-hectare land parcel in Kod village, Dhar district.
A Badnawar trial court ruled for Brajesh Singh and others on January 18, 2017, granting mutation rights and a permanent injunction.
The Dhar District Judge condoned the delay in August 2024 because government land was involved.
Justice Vinay Saraf ruled that administrative lethargy and inter-departmental correspondence did not justify reopening the case.
- Who
- The Madhya Pradesh State government, Brajesh Singh and others, and the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- What
- The High Court set aside an order condoning the State’s six-year delay and dismissed its first appeal in a land dispute.
- When
- The trial court ruled on January 18, 2017; the State filed its appeal on March 17, 2023; and the High Court overturned the delay order after August 2, 2024.
- Where
- The dispute concerns land in Kod village, Dhar district, and was decided by the Indore Bench in Madhya Pradesh.
- Why
- The High Court found no sufficient explanation for the State’s inaction from January 2017 to November 2022 and held that administrative lethargy cannot justify reopening settled rights.
Petitioners’ position
State’s position
Whether the delay was justified
Petitioners’ position
Brajesh Singh and the other petitioners argued that the State gave no day-to-day explanation for the six-year delay and that administrative correspondence was insufficient.
State’s position
The State said the delay resulted from the process of securing necessary sanctions and approvals.
Importance of the disputed land
Petitioners’ position
The petitioners argued that the State could not receive preferential treatment simply because government-managed land was involved.
State’s position
The State argued that valuable public land was at stake and this justified allowing the late appeal.
Effect of limitation rules
Petitioners’ position
The petitioners relied on Supreme Court precedents stating that limitation laws apply equally to government bodies and private citizens.
State’s position
The State sought to have its delayed appeal heard despite the limitation period, but the High Court rejected that position.
- Land involved
- A 0.089-hectare parcel in Kod village, Dhar district.
- Trial-court ruling
- The Badnawar trial court ruled for Brajesh Singh and others on January 18, 2017.
- Trial-court relief
- The petitioners were declared entitled to mutation of their names and received a permanent injunction.
- Appeal delay
- The State filed its first appeal six years and two months after the 2017 ruling.
- District court order
- The Dhar District Judge condoned the delay on August 2, 2024.
- High Court outcome
- The High Court set aside the district court order and dismissed both the delay application and the State’s appeal.
- Core legal principle
- Limitation periods apply equally to the State and private citizens, according to the High Court’s ruling.