Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 MP No.3852/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 11th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3852 of 2021
Between:-
RAMLAL S/O MANGILAL DHAKAD, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O: VILLAGE MANPURA, TEHSIL SINGOLI, DISTRICT NEEMUCH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI Amit Raj Adv.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR
1.
NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
GOPILAL S/O MOTI DHAKAD VILLAGE MANPURA, TEHSIL SINGOLI
2.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
PRAKASH S/O MOHAN DHAKAD VILLAGE MANPURA, TEHSIL
3.
SINGOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)
BAZERAM S/O MOTI DHAKAD VILLAGE MANPURA, TEHSIL
4.
SINGOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(Shri Ranjeet Sen, GA for respondent No.1/State)
(Shri Vismit Panot Adv. For respondents No.2 & 4)
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
2 MP No.3852/2021
ORDER
1/ This petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9.8.2021 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain in case No.109/Appeal/2020-21, whereby an appeal under Section 44(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (in short "MPLRC") has been dismissed and order dated 2.3.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Javad, District Neemuch in case No.31/Appeal/2018-19 has been affirmed.
2/ The facts in brief are that petitioner has preferred an application under Section 129 of MPLRC for demarcation of his land bearing Survey No.518 & 519 and after issuance of notice to the concerned parties, the revenue authorities found unauthorized possession of the private respondents on the land bearing Survey No.518. Based upon the demarcation report, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC seeking relief of restoration of possession. The learned Tehsildar vide order dated 2.2.2019 dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner preferred first appeal under Section 44 of the MPLRC before the SDO, Javad but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 2.3.2020. Thereafter petitioner has preferred second appeal under Section 44 of MPLRC before Addl.
3 MP No.3852/2021Commissioner, Ujjain but the same was also dismissed, therefore, this petition has been filed before this Court.
3/ Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that now in the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC, the courts below have denied to grant relief by holding the order of demarcation, which has attained finality to be defective. Order passed in a proceeding under Section 129 of MPLRC in respect to demarcation cannot be challenged in a proceeding under Section 250 of the MPLRC. All the courts below have committed serious error of law by holding that field book is required to be prepared. All the courts below have left the petitioner remedyless as instead of directing for fresh demarcation to the revenue authorities, the courts below have simply dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner. The impugned order is contrary to the law and facts. The grounds raised by the petitioner as well as the documents produced by him has not been considered while passing the impugned order. Hence, he prays that impugned order dated 9.8.2021, 2.2.2019 and 2.3.2020 be set aside and Naib Tehsildar be directed to restore the possession of the petitioner in accordance with the demarcation report.
4/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are sound, lawful and under exercise of their jurisdiction.
5/ Learned GA for the respondent No./State has also supported the impugned order passed by the court below and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4 MP No.3852/20216/ Both the parties heard at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the parties.
7/ From perusal of the order-sheet dated 2.12.2019 of Tehsildar Court, it is clear that during the demarcation field book was not prepared. Through the Panchnama report and evidence of the witnesses it is not proved that Revenue Inspector has demarcated properly. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of Murlidhar and another Vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. and others reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 184, in which it has been held that:-
"15. As far as the second ground is concerned, the proceeding under Section 129 for demarcation was conducted by the Tahsildar and had attained finality. If the petitioners had any grievance with regard to the said order they were required to challenge the same in accordance to law by filing an appeal or revision against the said order by invoking the provisions of Section 44 or Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. If the petitioners felt that the order passed under Section 129 is without notice to them and without hearing them, they should have challenged the said order in accordance to law. Having not done so, the order becomes a final order and based on the same if the possession of the respondents are restored, no error is committed by the Board of Revenue or the Additional Commissioner. That apart, it is a case of the petitioners that in the proceeding held under Section 129 notice was not issued to them, however, the finding recorded is contrary and it shows that inspite of notice petitioner No.1 did not appear and petitioner No.2 did not receive the notice. Be it as it may be, once the order under Section 129 had attained finality and based on the same action is taken, I see no reason to interfere into the matter."5 MP No.3852/2021
8/ Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Neema Bai Vs. Saraswati Bai and others reported in 2002 RN 416, in which it has been held that:-
"6............................In the present case, plaintiff had already got surveyed and demarcated the land through Revenue Officer report of which Ex.P-8A with map Ex.P-8 was there on record and Rup Singh (PW-3) Patwari who surveyed and demarcated the land was also examined on oath in Court and was cross-examined by the appellant to her not content. The learned trial Court had not relied upon such survey report. However, the appellant had not appealed or applied for revision against the demarcation by the competent Revenue Officer. Such demarcation being within jurisdiction could not be challenged in civil Court collaterally. Chunnilal vs.Govind, 1985 MPWN 452. The learned trial Court had mainly discarded such demarcation on the ground that Rupchand (PW-
3) had not prepared a field book and had not specified the permanent marks in his report. The learned first appellate court has on the other hand disagreed with the trial Court and has held that the demarcation was proper, plots being too small no field book need be prepared and mere not stating Chanda number was not sufficient to discard the report and that absence of appellant was not established. Thus, Sendhwa Club vs. State of M.P. (1998 RN 106) does not help the appellant.
The ratio in Gulabsingh Vs. Ranchhod, 1978(II) MPWN 284, that at least two fixed survey marks be taken for such survey would apply only when the plot area was large."
9/ From perusal of the demarcation report, it appears that possession of Gopilal, Prakash and Bajeram has been found over 63.50 Kadi long and 40 Kadi broad land of the Survey No.518 situated at village Maanpura but demarcation report was not according to the law.
6 MP No.3852/2021No field book and map has been prepared during the demarcation proceedings. Even the Panchnama was not prepared on the spot and it is not clearly mentioned that in which Khasra number demarcation proceedings have been started. Petitioner has not filed any separate application for any other demarcation, therefore, revenue authorities have rightly rejected the application under Section 250 of the MPLRC.
10/ Therefore, on the basis of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are just proper and also according to the law. The Addl. Commissioner, Ujjain and other two below revenue authorities have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders.
11/ In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality could be seen in the impugned order. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Anil Verma) Judge trilok/-
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNERDate: 2022.04.12 19:09:47 +05'30'