Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 April, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 27 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9241 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY AGRAWAL S/O SHRI BALKRISHNADAS
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESSMAN R/O REWA ROAD SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEPAK AWASTHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE COLLECTOR REWA SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE TEHSILDAR TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAJESH KUMAR KEDIA S/O SHRI HANUMAN DAS
KEDIA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NEAR PARK
HOTEL REWA ROAD SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAKESH KUMAR KEDIA S/O SHRI HANUMAN DAS
KEDIA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NEAR PARK
HOTEL REWA ROAD SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI V.C. RAI - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI R.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM 2 This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned orders dated 30.05.2022 contained in Annexure P/3, order dated 20.02.2023 contained in Annexure P/5 and order dated 11.04.2023 contained in Annexure P/7.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application under Section 129 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "MPLRC, 1959") was preferred before the Tehsildar Raghurajnagar, District-Satna. The Tehsildar Raghurajnagar upon receipt of the said application, issued direction for demarcation of the property in question. Thereafter, the present petitioner was issued a notice and he was called upon to remain present on the due date of demarcation, but in the said receipt of said notice, the signature of the present petitioner is forged as the petitioner never received any notice and accordingly, the said notice was ensued in preparation of Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) which has also been brought on record at page 32 of the petition. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that in terms of the procedure laid down in Section 129 of MPLRC, 1959, upon receipt of the demarcation report from Revenue Inspector, Tehsildar Raghurajnagar in terms of the Section 129(4) of MPLRC, 1959 is required to extend an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the neighbours of the property and therefore, at the stage of Section 129 (4) of MPLRC, 1959, a notice was required to be issued to the petitioner, but without issuing any notice to the petitioner, Tehsildar Raghurajnagar proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 which is at page no.34 of the petition contained in Annexure P/3. By the said order, in a purely mechanical manner, Tehsildar Raghurajnagar confirmed the demarcation report submitted by the Revenue Inspector.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM 33. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/3 at page no.34 of the petition) reflects that the same does not speak about any opportunity of hearing to any of the parties including the present petitioner. The present petitioner was not aware about passing of the said order and later on, when there were efforts to encroach upon the property somewhere in December, 2022, the petitioner inquired about the order then he came to know about passing of order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/3). Upon obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 30.05.2022, the petitioner approached the Sub-Division Officer, Raghurajnagar in terms of Section 129 (5) of MPLRC, 1959 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that when the attempts were made to take forcible possession of the property in question on 30.12.2022, then the petitioner came to know about the order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/3) and accordingly, the same was assailed by filing an application under Section 129 (5) of MPLRC, 1959 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Counsel further contends that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar by passing the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) without appreciating the fact that the petitioner herein was not issued any notice under Section 129 (4) of MPLRC, 1959.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar has taken into consideration the notice as well as Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) which has been filed with the present petition at page No. 32 (Annexure P/3). Counsel for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM 4 the petitioner contends that this was not a notice under Section 129 (4) of the MPLRC, 1959 even if it is assumed that the same was served upon the petitioner. Thus, counsel submits that this aspect escaped the attention of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar that no notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 129 (4) of the MPLRC, 1959, therefore, there was no occasion with the petitioner to know about the passing of the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/3) by the Tehsildar Raghurajnagar. Thus counsel submits that the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer deserves to be quashed and the matter be remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 129 (5) of the MPLRC, 1959.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contention of the petitioner contending inter-alia that the petitioner herein was noticed which is evident from the Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) which is brought on record at page No.32 (Annexure P/3). Counsel for the respondents contends that the Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) was signed by the present petitioner and therefore, throughout the petitioner was within the knowledge of the fact that the proceedings under Section 129 of MPLRC, 1959 were going on and therefore, the petitioner at this stage cannot take recourse to a ground that he was not extended an opportunity of hearing by the Tehsildar Raghurajnagar while passing the order whereby the demarcation reports submitted by Revenue Inspector was confirmed in terms of Section 129 (4) of the MPLRC, 1959. Thus, counsel for the respondents submits that at this stage, no interference is warranted in the present petition.
6. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM 57. A perusal of the documents filed along with the present petition reflect that after filing of an application under Section 129 of MPLRC, 1959 by respondent No.4, the Revenue Inspector issued a notice to the parties to remain present on the scheduled date of demarcation. The said notice is contained in the petition at page No.33. The said notice at serial No.3 contains the name as well as signature of the petitioner, though the said signature of the petitioner is being disputed by the counsel. Thereafter, a Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) was also prepared which is contained at page No.32 of the petition. The said Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) was submitted with the Tehsildar Raghurajnagar.
The Tehsildar Raghurajnagar upon receipt of the said Spot Panchnama (LFky iapukek) , was required to issue notices to all concerned in terms of Section 129 (4) of MPLRC, 1959, but there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that the Tehsildar Raghurajnagar issued any notice to all interested parties in terms of Section 129 (4) of MPLRC, 1959. On the contrary, a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/3) reflects that the Tehsildar Raghurajnagar in a purely mechanical manner ventured upon to accept the report of the Revenue Inspector and confirmed the demarcation report. The said demarcation report, according to the petitioner, came to his knowledge when the attempts were made by the respondents to take forcible possession of the property in the end of December, 2022 and accordingly, upon obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 30.05.2022 (Annexure P/3) of Tehsildar, an application under Section 129 (5) of MPLRC, 1959 was moved before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar.
8. The submissions so advanced by the petitioner appears to be reasonable inasmuch as, the order of Tehsildar Raghurajnagar dated 30.05.2022 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM 6 (Annexure P/3) is conspicuously silent as regards the opportunity of hearing to all concerned and the order merely confirms the demarcation report already submitted by the Revenue Inspector in a purely mechanical manner.
9. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar. Moreover, the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the substantive right of the party unless they take recourse to dilatory tactics and there is no deliberate or willful delay.
10. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 in paragraph-11 has held as under:-
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to u n en d in g uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM 711. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar is unsustainable and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
12. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar to take decision on the petitioner's application filed under Section 129 (5) of MPLRC, 1959 on merits while extending opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the present petitioner as well as private respondent herein. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today.
13. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 5/1/2023 3:57:54 PM