Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadashiv Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MP 590
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
W.P. No.9436/2018
(Sadashiv Bharti vs. State of M.P. & ors. )
Jabalpur, Dtd.11-7-2018 :
Shri S.D. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General with
Smt. Namrata Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No.1 to
4. Ms. Sanskriti Jain, Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumana, District Rewa, respondent No.3 in person.
Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents No.7 and
8. On 20-6-2018, after considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notices were issued to the alleged encroachers, who were impleaded as respondents No.6 to 21 in the array of parties; and the Sub- Divisional Officer, Hanumana District Rewa, respondent No.3 was also directed to appear in person before this Court to explain that on what basis such an order was passed in favour of the encroachers.
The present writ petition has been filed in the form of a public interest litigation. This is second round of litigation. The earlier petition was registered as W.P. No.9024/2017 which was disposed of by order dated 14-7-2017 directing the Collector, Rewa to decide the claim of the writ petitioner expeditiously and to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachment in accordance with law. Subsequently, the order dated 14-7-2017 was modified in a review petition vide R.P. No.509/2017 and description of the land in question was corrected as "Khasra Nos.261/3, 266, 267, 268, 269, 2 270 and 271" in place of "Khasra Nos.361/3, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 and 271".
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Government land bearing Khasra Nos.261/3, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 and 271 of the Village Hata, Gram Panchayat Hata, District Rewa has been encroached.
In compliance to the order passed by this Court the petitioner approached the respondent No.2, Collector Rewa, who directed the Tehsildar, Tehsil Hanumana to take necessary action for removal of encroachment, vide order dated 3-10-2017 (Annexure- P/8). Thereafter, the Tehsildar conducted an enquiry and found that there are fourteen persons who have encroached upon the government land. The Tehsildar vide order dated 22-11-2017 directed the encroachers to remove their encroachment and also imposed a fine Rs.1000/- on each of them. A copy of the said has been placed on record as Annexure-P/9.
Against the order of the Tehsildar an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumana. The appeal filed by the alleged encroachers was allowed by the Sub-Divisional officer, vide order dated 27-3-2018 holding that since the encroachments are about thirty years old, therefore, removal thereof is not necessary.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present present writ petition has been filed alleging that the action taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumana, respondent No.3, is to circumvent the orders passed by this Court and the order passed by the Collector, Rewa. It is assiduously and astutely urged that without considering the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Gramo Me Ki Dakhalrahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as `the Adhiniyam 1970'] the order has been 3 passed.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that since private respondents are encroachers on a public land, they have no right to continue in possession thereof, as the provisions envisaged in the Adhiniyam, 1970 protects the unoccupied lands on which inhabitants of such village have erected building for the purpose of residence or purposes ancillary thereto. An `inhabitant of a village' is a person who holds land; or works as an agricultural artisan or as an agricultural labourer.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State and the respondent No.3, who is present in Court, that the case of the private respondents was considered in the light of the provisions engrafted in the Adhiniyam, 2017 and, therefore, they were found entitled for allotment of the land by virtue of the said Adhiniyam. The learned counsel for the State also produced a copy of the the Gazette Notification dated 7th September 2017 whereby the provisions engrafted in the Adhiniyam 1970 have been amended by the Act, namely, Madhya Pradesh Gramo Me Ki Dakhalrahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upbandh) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2017.
Prima facie, taking into consideration the provisions of the Adhiniyam 1970 and definition of "inhabitant of village"
provided in Section 2(b) of the Adhiniyam, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the definition of the "inhabitant of a village" provided in Section 2(b) of the Adhiniyam 1970.
Upon a bare perusal of the aforesaid Notification, we find that the words - "31st day of December, 2011" has only been substituted by "31st day of December, 2014" and no substantive change has been brought in the provisions of the Adhiniyam 1970.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The 4 impugned order dated 27-3-2018 (Annexure-P/13) is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as costs.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2018.07.12 18:08:38 +05'30'