Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bagdiram vs Lalchand on 22 August, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 41 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
BAGDIRAM S/O RAMRATAN RATHORE, AGED ABOUT
75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
BHUWASA TEH. BADNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONGWITH JITENDRA SHUKLA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LALCHAND S/O BHERULAL KUMHAR VILLAGE
DHANASUTA RATLAM /VILLAGE BHUWASA TEH.
BADNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BADNAGAR. DIST.
UJJAIN. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NAIB TEHSILDAR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR DIST.
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMEER ANANT ATHAWALE-ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by Additional Tehsildar under Section 129 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short '' MPLRC'') as well as proceedings initiated under Section 250 of MPLRC for taking possession of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 23-08- 2023 19:20:46 2 encroached land.
2. Respondent No.1 Lalchand submitted an application under Section 129 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar for demarcation of his land which was entertained and Revenue Inspector/Patwari was directed to conduct the demarcation on the spot. Notices dated 15.04.2019 were issued to all the neighboring land owners including the petitioner. Thereafter panchnama was drawn on 22.04.2019. The matter was taken up on 25.04.2019 by the Additional Tehsildar the Panchnama report has been made absolute and closed the proceedings. Thereafter now Tehsildar initiated proceedings under Section 250 of MPLRC, hence, this petition before this Court.
3. After notice respondents have filed reply.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Shri Garg, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that that the application filed by the respondent No.1 was taken up and direction was given to register the case in ''A-12'' category on 24.05.2019. Order was issued to the Revenue Inspector/ Patwari for demarcation and on the same date, report was received and proceedings were closed. However, petitioner obtained the certified copy of notice dated 15.04.2019 and Panchnama report dated 24.05.2019 which are filed as Annexure P/3 and P/4 respectively in this petition. Shri Garg, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the demarcation proceedings were wrongly drawn in absence of the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by Additional Tehsildar is not sustainable.
5. Shri Athawale, learned counsel for the respondent submits that although the order sheet has not properly written on 25.04.2019 but the procedure prescribed under Section 129 of MPLRC was followed. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 23-08- 2023 19:20:46 3 respondent No.1 submitted an application on 18.03.2019, thereafter the direction was issued to Revenue Inspector/ Patwari to carry out the demarcation. The notices were sent to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same. His son was present during the demarcation proceedings and thereafter report was submitted. However, the proceedings are not properly written by the Additional Tehsildar. He further submits that after receipt of the report, notices were liable to be issued to the petitioner under Section 129 (3) of MPLRC before confirming the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector/Patwari, therefore, at the most the matter can be remanded back to that stage but the Panchnama drawn by the Revenue Inspector should be accepted.
6. It is correct that the Additional Tehsildar has not properly recorded the proceedings and the case registered under Section 129 of MPLRC. Entire proceedings have been recorded on 25.04.2019 which reveals that the application was filed on 25.04.2019, the direction was given to field inspection, report was received on the same day and proceedings were closed. But in the record, the notice dated 15.04.2019 and Panchnama report 22.04.2019 are also available, therefore all these proceedings were drawn but same are not written in the order sheets. The facts remains that spot inspection was carried out in absence of the petitioner. The notices under Section 129 (3) of MPLRC was also not given to the petitioner, hence, entire proceedings are liable to be quashed and liable to be drawn as per law.
7. Petitioner and respondent No.1 both are directed to appear before the Additional Tehsildar Badnagar on 04.09.2023, thereafter who shall start the proceedings afresh strictly as per Section 129 of MPLRC.
With the aforesaid, Writ Petition is allowed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 23-08- 2023 19:20:46 4No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Praveen Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 23-08- 2023 19:20:46