Mahesh Rajput & ANR. v. National Commission For Scheduled Tribes And ORS

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13442/2025 and CM APPL.55222/2025 (Stay) MAHESH RAJPUT & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Abhijit Kumar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Bhabani Sarkar, Ms. Shefali Goyal and Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advs.

(through v/c) versus NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED TRIBES AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 02.09.2025

O R D E R

1.

The petitioners are residents of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and the subject matter of the present petition pertains to a land dispute concerning Khasra 866, 865, 868, 863, 870, 871, 869, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876 and 877, situated at Pipaliya Jahir peer, District Bhopal. 2.

It is submitted that one Ravi Shanker Thakur / respondent no.6, claiming rights in respect of the said land, had filed W.P.(C) 25656/2022, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. By order dated 31.03.2023, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the District Collector and District Magistrate, Bhopal / respondent no.5, to consider Ravi Shanker's representation dated 27.05.2022 and pass a reasoned order within a period of 90 days. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2025 at 12:11:25

3.

It is submitted that despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent no.6, suppressing the fact about the aforesaid order of the High Court, submitted a fresh complaint dated 12.05.2023 before the National Commission for Schedule Tribes (NCST), New Delhi. 4.

Further, it is contended that the NCST, without considering its own rules, initiated proceedings and issued a notice dated 17.07.2025. 5.

It transpires that the controversy pertain to parties who are situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Applying the doctrine of 'forum nonconveniens', it would not be appropriate for this Court to assume jurisdiction, based merely upon the situs of the respondent no.1/forum, when a pre-dominant part of the cause of action has arisen within the state of Madhya Pradesh.

6.

In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned jurisdictional High Court (Madhya Pradesh High Court) for redressal of their grievances. 7.

The petition stands disposed of.

8.

Needless to say, this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court as regards merits of the controversy. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2025/cl The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/09/2025 at 12:11:25