Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Leelabai vs Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... on 9 May, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
-1-
Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 2106 of 2022
Between:-
1. SMT. LEELABAI W/O SHRI MOHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE KUDANA, TEHSIL SANWER,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAKIRKHAN S/O VALI MOHAMMAD,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE AND TEHSIL SANWER,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KUNDANBAI W/O PANNALAL,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BADRILAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
DURGABAI W/O BADRILAL,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. HUSSAIN KHAN S/O MAJID KHAN (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. RASHID S/O HUSSAIN KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. DROPADIBAI W/O RADHESHYAM,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
-2-
Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. HUSSAIN KHAN S/O MAJID KHAN (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. RASHID S/O HUSSAIN KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SMT. HUSSAIN B. W/O MANJU KHAN (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. RASIDKHAN S/O MANJUKHAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. GURMITSINGH S/O MANGATSINGH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL SANWER,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, UJJAIN
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
COLLECTOR / LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
SANWER, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SANTOSH SINGH S/O JEEVAN SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS.
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KAVALJEET KAUR W/O IQBALSINGH GANDHI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
-3-
Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KAILASH S/O BUDDHAJI AND OTHERS
SUNDARLAL S/O BUDDHAJI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAMKUNWAR BAI W/O SIDHNATH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE KUDANA TEHSIL SANWER,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. MANNAS KHAN S/O MAJID KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. AJEEJ KHAN S/O SPAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SUSHILA BAI W/O PUNA AND OTHERS,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. AMBARAM S/O KANHAIYALAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. SMT. TULSIBAI W/O ISHWARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. MADANLAL S/O BABULAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS. SMT. SAJAN BAI,
W/O MADANLAL AND ORS.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
-4-
Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022
12. AMBARAM S/O KANHAIYALAL (DECEASED)
LRS. SMT. TULSIBAI W/O ISHWARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SANWER TEHSIL INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT / STATE BY SHRI RANJEET SEN, GA)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
O R D E R
With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 02- The petitioners before this Court have filed present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04/04/2022 passed by Principal District Judge, Indore in MJC Case No.168/2022, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") has been dismissed. 03- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. Number of the residents of same village have filed reference petition for the same relief and 6th Additional District Judge, Indore vide judgment dated 06/04/2018 has decided the reference petition. The 9th Additional District Judge, Indore has also decided the similar claim petitions vide judgment dated 14/01/2022 and the 9th Additional District Judge, Indore in order to make consistency has considered the judgments passed by co-ordinate -5- Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022 Bench and decided the matter according to law but the 22 nd Additional District Judge, Indore has ignored the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench and decided the matter ignoring the settled principles of law. Therefore, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 24 of CPC before the Principal District Judge, Indore stating that similar other 19 cases be transferred to the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Indore. After hearing the parties, the Principal District Judge, Indore has dismissed the application. Therefore, the petitioners have filed present petition. 04- Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Raghvendra Swamy Mutt Vs. Uttaradi Mutt reported in (2016) 11 SCC 810 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Hirendra Pal Singh and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 305 but in the present case no order has to be construed as a reflection on conduct of Presiding Officer hearing the matter nor he has committed any partiality or discrimination with the petitioners, therefore, both the citations are distinguishable and are not applicable in the present matter. 05- The order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Indore is illegal, unjust and contrary to law. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order dated 04/04/2022 be set aside and all the 19 cases be transferred to the Court of 9th Additional District Judge, Indore.
-6-Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022 06- Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and prays for dismissal of the petition. 07- Both the parties are heard at length and perused the documents filed by them. Section 24 of CPC deals with general powers of the High Court and District Court to transfer the suits, appeals and other proceedings but such transfer can be ordered only when the parties have reasonable apprehension that justice will be denied to it. Jurisdiction under Section 24 of CPC should be exercised with extreme caution and should be exercised where the ends of justice would be sub served better.
08- In the present matter 9th Additional District Judge, Indore and 22nd Additional District Judge, Indore both the Courts are having equal jurisdiction and both the Courts are equally competent to try and decide a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the case of Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 287, the Hon'ble apex Court has held that choice of Court is not any right of advocates. 09- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that 22 nd Additional District Judge has decided a matter in the case of Ishak S/o Nawab Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which learned Court has taken a view which is absolutely contrary to the findings recorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. If in a particular case any party is aggrieved by any order of 22nd Additional District Judge, Indore, he has a remedy to file an appeal or revision or any -7- Misc. Petition No.2106 of 2022 other proceeding, which is applicable in this but that cannot be allowed to taken as a ground for transfer of other cases from a particular Court. On the basis of the findings of other matter such view cannot be made that 22nd Additional District Judge will decide each and every case against the claimants.
10- On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Principal District Judge, Indore has acted rightly in dismissing the transfer application sought on a simple ground that since one case has been decided against any claimant, therefore, he apprehended that in other case he may not get the adequate relief.
11- If transfers sought on such ground are allowed, there will be a grave damages to the administration of justice and hamper the Court of justice. The impugned order passed by the Principal District Judge, Indore is just and proper and according to law, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
12- The present miscellaneous petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.05.10 15:49:01 +05'30'