A writ petition pending since 2018 over encroachment around the ancient Vishnu Barah Mandir at Majhauli in Jabalpur district has been disposed of by the Madhya Pradesh High Court with a direction that eviction proceedings against alleged encroachers be concluded preferably within three months, the Court noting that “the battle has been going on since many years”.
Jabalpur: Authorities have been told to conclude eviction proceedings against alleged encroachers around the ancient Shri Vishnu Barah Mandir at Majhauli as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, while the petitioner has been left free to seek a separate declaration of the temple as a protected monument under the central law [Shravan Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
The order was passed on October 29, 2026 by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, with the Chief Justice writing for the Bench.
Action already begun, but a clock fixed
On the encroachment grievance, the Bench found that the law had already been set in motion.
“In the opinion of the Court sofar as the grievance of encroachment is concerned, the Authorities have already initiated the appropriate action in accordance with law, therefore, the cause appears to have been addressed in accordance with law.”
It nonetheless accepted the petitioner’s request for a time-bound programme.
“However, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner for a time bound programme by which the eviction proceedings could be concluded and considering the fact that the battle has been going on since many years, the Court deems it fit to direct the Authorities to conclude the eviction proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today.”
What Shravan Kumar Soni asked for
The petitioner, Shravan Kumar Soni, objected to what the Court recorded as the “unbridled encroachment” around the monument. According to him, the temple has been declared protected under the M.P. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964, which regulates construction activity within the periphery of such a monument, yet “no care is being taken by the Authorities”.
He sought four reliefs:
- a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India to declare the temple an ancient monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and take its possession;
- a direction to the State authorities to immediately remove the encroachment in terms of a Civil Court decree and the 1964 State Act and Rules;
- action against and punishment of the encroachers under the 1964 Act and Rules; and
- any other relief, with costs.
The State’s reply, and the notices already issued
The respondent authorities stated in their reply that the alleged encroachers had approached the Civil Court to protect their possession, that this dispute had now ultimately been decided, and that steps had been initiated after the Civil Court’s orders.
Counsel for the petitioner himself referred to notices issued under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, including one calling on the alleged encroachers to appear before the Authority on October 5, 2026.
The ASI prayer: an application never made
The Court declined to issue a direction on the prayer for a declaration under the 1958 central Act, observing that the petitioner “has not even brought it to the notice of the concerned Authority under the Act of 1958” for such a declaration. It left it open to him to make an application “if a scope is available under the provisions as on date”.
The petition was disposed of, with the petitioner free to seek redress of any remaining grievance elsewhere.
Why the order matters
The case shows how heritage protection can stall when possession disputes reach the civil courts first. A petition filed in 2018 was disposed of only in 2026, after the alleged encroachers’ civil litigation had run its course and revenue proceedings had begun. By fixing a preferred three-month window, the High Court has put a clock on a process that had drifted for years, while stopping short of a mandatory deadline.
The order also restates a basic rule of writ practice: a court will not direct a statutory authority to act on a request that was never made to it. A party seeking protected-monument status under the 1958 Act must first approach the authority under that law before asking a High Court to compel a decision.
Case Title: Shravan Kumar Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Writ Petition No. 1563 of 2018]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:87053
Bench: Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
For the Petitioner: Anupam Chaturvedi, with Priyank Shandilya (through VC)
For the State: Nilesh Yadav, Additional Advocate General, with Gajendra Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 6: Suyash Mohan Guru; For Respondent No. 7: Himanshu Mishra