Om Prakash Choudhary vs Kamod Bai on 9 May, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Om Prakash Choudhary vs Kamod Bai on 9 May, 2022

Bench: Anjuli Palo

                            1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                             BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                      ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2022

                 MISC. PETITION No. 1098 of 2022

     Between:-
     OM    PRAKASH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE
     HAZARILAL CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 50
     YEAR S , OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O KAVAD
     MOHALLA, SARDAR PATEL MOHALLA ITARSI,
     DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   KAMOD    BAI   W/O  KAMAL    KUMAR,
     OCCUPATION: NIL WARD NO.3, HOUSING
     BOARD COLONY, OLD ITARSI, DISTRICT
     HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   GIRJA   BAI    W/O  LATE   HAZARILAL
     OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O KAVAD MOHALLA
     SARDAR PATELPURA OLD ITARSI, TAHSIL
     ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   SATYAPRAKASH    S/O  LATE  HAZARILAL,
     OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O KAVAD MOHALLA,
     SARDAR PATELPURA, OLD ITARSI TAHSIL
     ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

4.   POOJA W/O PREM PRAKASH, OCCUPATION:
     NIL,  R/O   KAVAD  MOHALLA    SARDAR
     PATELPURA OLD ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI
     DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   YOGITA D/O PREM PRAKASH OCCUPATION:
     THORUGH HER MOTHER POOJA W/O PREM
     PRAKASH, R/O KAVAD MOHALLA SARDAR
     PATELPURA OLD ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI
     DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   KUNAL S/O PREM PRAKASH OCCUPATION: NIL,
                            2
        THROUGH HIS MOTHER MS.POOJA W/O PREM
        PRAKASH R/O KAVAD MOHALLA SARDAR
        PATELPURA OLD ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI
        DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.      ASHA BAI D/O LATE HAZARILAL W/O
        RAMNARESH OCCUPATION: NIL R/O KAVAD
        MOHALLA SARDAR PATELPURA OLD ITARSI
        TAHSIL ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHAN GAB AD
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.      SUMAN BAI D/O LATE HAZARILAL W/O
        RAMNARESH OCCUPATION: NIL R/O KAVAD
        MOHALLA SARDAR PATELPURA OLD ITARSI
        TAHSIL  ITARSI   DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.      SHUBHAM S/O LATE SANTOSH OCCUPATION:
        NIL   R/O   KAVAD   MOHALLA SARDAR
        PATELPURA OLD ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI
        DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

10.     CHHOTU S/O LATE SANTOSH OCCUPATION: NIL
        R/O KAVAD MOHALLA SARDAR PATELPURA
        OLD   ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI DISTRICT
        HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

11.     KAVITA D/O LATE SANTOSH OCCUPATION: NIL
        R/O KAVAD MOHALLA SARDAR PATELPURA
        OLD   ITARSI TAHSIL ITARSI DISTRICT
        HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS


      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.1.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad in Case No. 286/Appeal/Year-2020-21 whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondents 3 are close relatives. The disputed land is Khasra No. 36/2, Khasra No. 643 and Khasra No. 667/3 total Rakba 2.328 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No. 9, Tahsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. One Hazarilal was having all the rights and powers over the disputed land being and owner and the head of the family. After his death, the disputed land was mutated in the name of his wife respondent No. 2 Girja Bai vide order dated 29.10.1996.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.1996, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad on the ground that the land in question is ancestral land and it could not be mutated only in the name of respondent No. 2.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed appeal filed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 14.1.2021 passed in Case No. 0014/Appeal/2016-17 and observed that the land in question was ancestral property of deceased Hazarilal and after his death, names of all his legal heirs are to be recorded in the revenue record. However, the it was directed to update the revenue record as before.

5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner herein filed second appeal before Additional Commissioner, Division Narmadapuram, District Hoshangabad, which was dismissed, hence this petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the orde of Additional Commission on the ground that land was mutated in 1996 in favour of respondent No.2 and to meet out family nees some part thereof was also sold to one Meena, to which, respondent No.1 was witness. The respondent No.1 did not raise objection at that point of time and now challenge to the same after 16 years is not permissible. The land in question is ancestral property and 4 female members had no right prior to 2000. The impugned order has been passed without impleading and affording an opportunity of hearing to person to whom land has been sold.

7. Perused the impugned order of Additional Commissioner as also the order dated 14.1.2021 passed by Sub Divisional Officer. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There are concurrent findings against the petitioner, which cannot be interfered with. Hence, the petition is devoid of substance.

8. In the result, Misc.Petition stands dismissed.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE RM Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2022.05.13 19:30:42 IST

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court