Iftikaar Hussain vs Arvindar Sood on 20 September, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Iftikaar Hussain vs Arvindar Sood on 20 September, 2019

Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked assailing the impugned order dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Collector, Guna dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner thereby affirming the interlocutory order of Tehsildar dismissing an application u/O.7 Rule 11 of CPC preferred in proceedings commenced by the respondent u/S.250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity "MPLRC ").

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in cases of Asaf Jahan Begum Vs. Bashir Begum (1964 JLJ 46), Krishnakumardas and Anr. Vs. Balramdas and Ors. (1971 MPLJ 864) and Asgar Ali Vs. Amna Bi [2011 (3) MPHT 98 (CG)] submits that since the land in question in regard to which Sec.250 of MPLRC proceedings are commenced is 2 M.P.No.3330/2019 an Abadi land and not a vacant land, the said provisions of Sec.250 of MPLRC are inapplicable thereby leaving the respondent with the only course of approach the Civil Court to the exclusion of any remedy under the MPLRC. In this factual background, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the application u/O.7 Rule 11 CPC was wrongly dismissed by the Tehsildar as well as the Collector. It is further submitted that the enquiry conducted by the revenue authority over the land in question revealed that there was a shop constructed on the same and one plot was vacant while an area of 0.065 hectare was in possession of the Kabristan Committee over which workshop was constructed.

A bare perusal of the foundational order of Tehsildar rejecting the application u/O.7 Rule 11 CPC reveals that a part of the land in question was vacant while on the other, construction as aforesaid was made. The land was purchased by the respondent from erstwhile owner Dinesh Kumar Sharma by way of sale deed and this purchased property was unlawfully occupied by the opposite side. As to whether the occupation of the land was authorized/unauthorized, the Tehsildar has held that the same relates to the field of the evidence.

The ground raised by petitioner that Sec.250 of MPLRC is applicable only in respect of vacant land and not where construction has been made, does not find support in the statutory provision u/S.250 of MPLRC. Sec.250 of MPLRC which merely protects a Bhoomiswami, who has been dispossessed of his land without 3 M.P.No.3330/2019 following the due process of law by conferring power upon the competent revenue authority to restore possession either on an application made by wrongly dispossessed Bhoomiswami or suo moto. The expression "land" is not defined in Sec.250 of MPLRC to mean only vacant or unoccupied land. It seems that the petitioner is confused between the provision of Sec.250 of MPLRC and provision u/S.248 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In view of above, proceedings commenced by the Tehsildar on behest of the respondent cannot be found fault with and therefore, the same deserve to reach it's logical conclusion in accordance with law.

The orders of Tehsildar and the Collector do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, therefore,both petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution deserve to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the same is hereby is dismissed.

 Ashish*                                                       (Sheel Nagu)
                                                                 Judge
ASHISH
CHOURASIYA
2019.10.03
10:53:26
-07'00'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court