Madhya Pradesh High Court orders ten-member committee to save Gwalior's hillocks from land mafia

Treating illegal encroachment and excavation of Gwalior's hillocks as an existential public-trust question, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set up a Collector-led, expert-and-citizen committee to fence, afforest and audit every hillock in and around the city.

The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has admitted a public interest petition complaining that the hillocks ringing Gwalior are being encroached and quarried away by land mafia, and has set up a ten-member committee — chaired by the District Collector and built around subject experts and city residents — to survey, fence, afforest and police every such hillock in and around the city. The bench framed the question as “existential” and not merely legal or administrative, and tied its order to the public-trust doctrine and to the statutory concept of “Social Audit” in the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.

The petition was filed by Jandel Singh Yadav, who described himself as a public-spirited citizen. His counsel told the division bench of Justices Anand Pathak and Pushpendra Yadav that hills surrounding Gwalior — named in paragraph K1 of the petition — were being either encroached upon by people or progressively excavated by quarry operators. If the excavation continued, counsel argued, the hillocks would be flattened, green cover would vanish, and exposed stone would push the city’s already harsh summer further into discomfort.

The State did not push back. Additional Advocate General Vivek Khedkar told the court that the District Administration had recently ordered registration of police cases against persons who had laid out illegal colonies on Government land and sold plots, and assured the bench that “suitable action” would follow in the present case as well.

Public trust, and a problem the bench called “existential”

Counsel for the petitioner anchored the case on two Supreme Court authorities. The first was M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, where the public-trust doctrine was authoritatively read into Indian law — the State holds rivers, forests, hills and other natural resources as a trustee for the public and cannot allow private appropriation or degradation. The second was Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, on the protection of common and Government lands from creeping encroachment.

The bench treated those authorities as the doctrinal floor and went further. It described the concern as one that goes beyond legal, administrative, social or jurisprudential framing, calling it “existential”: hills around the city act as Gwalior’s green lungs, and if green cover thins out, exposed stone radiates extreme heat and life in the region becomes “miserable”. That, the court held, justified a sharper supervisory response than the petitioner had asked for.

The petitioner had prayed for a high-level committee of officials drawn from Revenue, Town and Country Planning, Mining and Police. The bench accepted that a committee was the right instrument but said an officer-only body would not do. The project, it observed, “requires experience and expertise of subject experts” and demanded the participation of city residents themselves.

Social Audit, and why residents are inside the committee

For the citizen-participation limb, the bench drew on its own earlier order dated 2 May 2025 in Vishvajeet Ratoniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 19102/2019, which read together two provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 inserted by the Amendment Act of 2003. Section 5(54-a) defines “Social Audit” as the review of the impact of policies, programmes, schemes and procedures of any municipal authority “by a group or groups of persons residing within the municipal area”. Section 130-B mandates that the Corporation “shall arrange for Social Audit in such manner as may be prescribed”.

The bench treated this as the State’s first legislative recognition of city residents as stakeholders in urban planning, administration and development. Tenure-posted officers, it noted, often miss the cultural, traditional and ethos-based texture of a city; residents do not. Read in that light, “Social Audit” is not a formality but a tool of urban governance — covering not only cultural and traditional aspects but also technical and financial inputs on urbanisation patterns, traffic, water bodies and public behaviour.

That logic shaped the committee. The District Collector, Gwalior was made Chairman. The Municipal Commissioner or Additional Commissioner, the Superintendent of Police and the Divisional Forest Officer were named members for administrative reach. A retired senior judicial officer — Shri Gaurishankar Dubey of the Higher Judicial Services, former Principal Registrar of the Gwalior bench — was added for independent oversight, alongside High Court advocate Shri Prashant Sharma. The Additional Advocate General was made Coordinator-cum-Secretary, with the Government Advocate assisting.

Why an agriculture scientist, an Ayurved doctor and a vet

The interesting part of the order is the rationale the bench wrote out for each subject expert. The Vice Chancellor of Vijayaraje Scindia Agriculture University, Gwalior was added so that soil quality, suitable tree species and related agronomic questions could be answered scientifically. Dr. Dharmendra Richhariya, an Ayurved M.D., was brought in so that medicinal plants, shrubs and herbs — species the bench said are not currently grown systematically — could be folded into the plantation drive. Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, Senior Veterinary Surgeon at the Divisional Veterinary Hospital at Kampoo, was inducted because some species feed birds and animals; saplings, the bench said, must include those that “cater the need of animals/birds etc.” The bench wanted a committee that could deliver biodiversity, not just a tree count.

The operational directions follow that ambition. Every hillock identified in paragraph K1 of the petition, and any others the committee finds, is to be surveyed and either fenced or otherwise cordoned off so that future encroachment and excavation is foreclosed. Saplings are to be 6 to 8 feet tall at planting, with mixed species — Neem, Pipal, fruit-bearing trees, and Ayurvedic and medicinal varieties. The bench’s aim is that each hillock should grow into a “City Forest” usable for morning and evening walks, yoga, and family leisure, and should over time push down Gwalior’s peak summer temperatures.

Excavation, except what is legally permitted, is barred. The bench placed primary accountability for any illegal excavation on the District Mining Officer and the Mining Inspector of the relevant jurisdiction, with the IG, DIG and SP responsible for law and order. The committee is to meet at least once a fortnight at the Collectorate or at the Additional Advocate General’s chambers in the High Court campus; the District Collector’s absence from those meetings is to be exceptional and not routine. Where there is room for technical disagreement, administrative members are to give “weightage” to subject experts.

Documentation, water, and a Hindi reminder

The bench asked the committee to consider building an app on the model of the High Court’s NISARG App, developed with MAP-IT, Government of Madhya Pradesh, so that every plantation can be logged and, in time, converted into Carbon Credit accounting. Plantation areas are to be paired with water-harvesting structures wherever possible, on the bench’s view that a sapling planted next to a water body or harvesting kit grows faster and survives longer.

The order is also tied to two government campaigns. The Government of India’s “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam” initiative is cited as a symbolic and emotional plantation programme; the Madhya Pradesh Government’s campaign of the same name, launched in July 2024 with a target of 5.5 crore saplings, is named as a source of guidance and resources. The bench pointed to existing wins as proof of concept — the Sirol hillock opposite the Gwalior Collectorate, planted by litigants and lawyers under earlier court orders in bail and writ matters, and the Hari Parvat and Anand Parvat at Allapura, where the District Administration has already raised more than five thousand trees on each previously barren hill.

Running through the order is a Hindi line the bench wrote into paragraph 32 as the committee’s working philosophy: vrikshaaropan ke saath, vrikshaposhan bhi aavashyak hai — planting must be matched by nurturing. Professional bodies — Bar Association, Doctors’ Association, Rotary and Lions Clubs, Chamber of Commerce, Chartered Accountants — and elected representatives were invited to coordinate with the committee on resources and outreach.

Order

The amendment application (I.A. No. 4521/2026) was allowed and the petition admitted. The ten-member committee stands constituted under the District Collector, Gwalior. Notice was directed to be issued to the respondents by RAD mode within three working days, returnable in two weeks. The committee is to file an interim compliance report on its constitution and initial discussions on the next date. The bench listed the matter on 23 April 2026 and gave the media liberty to circulate the order so that other districts and States may consider replicating the model.