Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shanker Gond vs Vishal Singh on 13 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 4363 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SHANKER GOND S/O LALLU GOND, AGED ABOUT
80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE NAVEEN CHARGAWAN, TEHSIL
SHAHPURA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. VASUDEO GOND S/O LALLU GOND, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE NAVEEN CHARGAWAN, TEHSIL
SHAHPURA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHIV PRASAD GOND S/O LALLU GOND, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE NAVEEN CHARGAWAN, TEHSIL
SHAHPURA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
VISHAL SINGH S/O CHHIDI SINGH R/O VILLAGE
NAVEEN CHARGAWAN, TEHSIL SHAHPURA, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT PURI GOSWAMI - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 07.06.2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 13-10-2023 18:49:33 2 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in case No.0035/Appeal/2019-20 (Vishal Singh Vs. Shankar Gond and others) on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is cryptic and contrary to the provisions of law.
2. Petitioner has filed I.A. No.15747 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151, CPC for taking documents on record.
3. Same is allowed and documents are taken on record.
4. These documents are filed in response to the earlier observation of this Court on 04.10.2023, whereby petitioner was directed to bring on record copy of Khasra entries to show his possession.
5. Petitioner has filed Annexure P-13 which is a Khasra entry in which name of Vishal Singh is mentioned as a Pattadhari and Bhumiswami and in column 12 or anywhere else, name of the petitioner is not mentioned.
6. At this stage, Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Annexure P-14 and reading order dated 08.03.2016 submits that demarcation report was incomplete on the said date and, therefore, contention of the learned Additional Commissioner that since demarcation was carried out in favour of the respondent herein and in the demarcation report, petitioner was found to be encroacher, therefore, without challenging the demarcation report, orders of the competent authority under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''MPLRC''), cannot be challenged.
7. Shri Amit Puri Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent, in his turn, supports the impugned order and submits that in Annexure P-13, there is no mention of the name of the petitioner. In Annexure P-14, there is an order-sheet Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 13-10-2023 18:49:33 3 dated 21.04.2016 clearly demonstrating the fact that demarcation was complete and field book was prepared.
8. Though Shri Sharma disputes this and submits that demarcation was carried out behind his back but he could not produce any material on record to show that as and when he gathered knowledge about the demarcation case No.12/v -12/2014-15 and when he approached any superior authority for setting aside of such demarcation.
9. Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma places reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Balkrishan Vs. Satyaprakash and others, 2001 RN 139 and Bajrangi (Mahila) and others Vs. Badribai and another, 2003 RN 162 so also on the judgment of this High Court in case of Bhawarlal Vs. Kasturi Bai and others, 2008 RN 94
10. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in cases of Smt. Sharda Soni Vs. Ramesh Kumar (S.A. No.112/2016 decided on 01.03.2016) and Asgar Ali Vs. Amna Bi, 2011 (3) MPHT 98 (CG).
11. Placing reliance on these judgments, it is submitted that firstly respondent being not a Bhumiswami, is not entitled to take recourse to proceedings under Section 250, MPLRC. It is also submitted that in absence of any material to show that as to when petitioner had dispossessed the respondent, no orders could have been passed under Section 250, MPLRC and, therefore, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner being contrary to law, deserves to be set aside.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as far as judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bajrangi (Mahila) (supra) is concerned, the law laid is that mutation order of revenue authorities is not a judicial order and it does not confer any title. Thus, this Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 13-10-2023 18:49:33 4 judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
13. As far as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Balkrishan (supra) is concerned, it is in regard to adverse possession. It is held that if a person claiming title by adverse possession then he must show that his possession is adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent. It is held that if an order is passed by the Tehsildar under Section 250, MPLRC for restoration of possession to Bhumiswami and Bhumiswami neither acts upon nor executes and appellant continues in possession and continuity of possession is not interrupted then order of ejectment is immaterial.
14. In the present case, facts are different. Even these facts will not be applicable. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has perfected his title through adverse possession. His case is that the land in question was allotted in favour of petitioners' forefathers and since they have lost some papers, therefore, paper of allotment/title being not available, is not a circumstance to discredit the stand of the petitioner. This judgment too has no application to the facts of the present case.
15. As far as judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Asgar Ali (supra) is concerned, it is held therein that factum of forcible dispossession is to be proved as per the evidence of the petitioner. If possession was given to the petitioner 15 years ago and the property in dispute is a house property then provisions of Section 250, MPLRC is not applicable. This judgment too has no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, it is not the case of the petitioner that they were given possession of the property by the respondent herein. It is also not a dispute in regard to a constructed house so to debar the provisions of Section 250, MPLRC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 13-10-2023 18:49:33 516. As far as the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Smt. Sharda Soni (supra) is concerned, that too has no application to the facts of the present case and in view of undisputed demarcation report when it has come on record that petitioner is an encroacher and has encroached over the land allotted to the private respondent, impugned order dated 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, in absence of any challenge to the demarcation report, cannot be faulted with.
17. In view of above, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 13-10-2023 18:49:33