Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram Raghuanshi Sarmaaj Dwara ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 2 nd OF MARCH, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 533 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHRIRAM RAGHUANSHI SARMAAJ DWARA
PRESIDENT MOHAN SINGH S/O ROOP SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRE TEACHER, R/O
BY PAAS ROAD, TEHSIL ARON, DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAHESH GOYAL- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PATWARI KASVA
ARON (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 13/01/2022 passed in M.P. No.3093/2021 (Shriram Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.).
The crux of the matter is that SDO Aron, District Guna in case no.157/A2/2016-17 passed an order thereby assessing an amount of Rs.1,67,200/- towards premium amount and Rs.33,400/- towards land revenue on account of raising construction without getting diversion of the land. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 44 of MPLRC against the order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 03-03-2023 05:28:49 PM 2 SDO, Aron which dismissed by Additional Collector vide order dated 28/09/2018. The order of Additional Collector was put to challenge before the Additional Commissioner Gwalior Division, Gwalior by filing an appeal the same also dismissed vide order dated 12/01/2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed M.P. No.3093/2021 which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Against which present review petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the instant case main issue could not be brought to the knowledge of this Court that the revenue authorities have assessed the penalty and premium amount on the land having an area of 0.029 hectare whereas, petitioner has constructed Dharamshala over a small portion of land ad-measuring 25 x 70 = 1750 sq.ft.. It is further argued that the petitioner has submitted the reply to the show cause notice issued by SDO and it was mentioned in the reply that the land in question was gifted vide gift deed dated 05.07.1999 to the appellant trust for public purposes and over an area of 25 x 17 =1750 sq.ft. a Dharamshala was constructed. Section 172 of MPLRC provides that if land is diverted for public purposes then the diversion of land is not necessary. In the instant case, the SDO had passed the order of assessment on 11.10.2017. At that time, Section 172 of MPLRC was in force but the authorities did not consider the effect of Section 172 of MPLRC and assessed the amount of Land Revenue and premium amount arbitrarily. Since the amount of land revenue and premium amount assessed by SDO is contrary to the provisions of MPLRC, therefore, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of record.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate submits that under the review jurisdiction the only fact which can be taken note is with regard to any error which is apparent on the face of the record, but after considering the entire Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 03-03-2023 05:28:49 PM 3 record Hon'ble Court has passed the impugned order and even the Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of present review petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the respondent has force as the petitioner's counsel could not point out any ground on the basis of which order impugned can be reviewed as arguments are purely based on merit of the case which has already been gone into the Miscellaneous Petition and the impugned order was passed after considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court sees no reason to review the order passed by the coordinate Bench on 13.01.2022 (supra). The order is self contained and explanatory.
With the aforesaid, Review petition stands dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 03-03-2023 05:28:49 PM