Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Tiwari vs Rampal Tiwari on 20 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 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 8252 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
BABULAL TIWARI S/O LATE SURYA PRASAD TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O MOHALLA KUTHULIYA REWA
TEHSIL HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
RAMPAL TIWARI S/O LATE RAMLAL TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
MOHALLA KUTHULIYA REWA TEHSIL HUZUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for quashment of the order dated 14-03-2019, contained in Annexure-P/3 passed by Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the present petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property situated at Khasra Nos.421, 424 and 421/527 in the Village Kuthuliya, District Rewa. The respondent initiated proceeding before the Tahsildar, Huzur District Rewa by filing an application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/25/2023 5:11:19 PM 2 Code, 1959 [for short the "MPLRC"].
3. The Tahsildar passed the order dated 07-07-2017 under Section 250 of the MPLRC against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be dispossessed from the property in question. The order passed by the Tahsildar was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rewa, who vide order dated 05-02-2018 allowed the appeal while holding that as there is a civil suit pending pertaining to the same property, the parties would be bound by the order of the decree, which is to be passed by the Civil Court.
4. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rewa was then assailed by the respondent by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, who vide order dated 14-03-2019 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and thereby the order passed by the Tahsildar, dated 07-07-2017 came into force.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is unsustainable having been passed in complete ignorance of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Additional Commissioner did not appreciate this aspect of the matter that a civil suit between the parties is pending adjudication and, therefore, during the pendency of the civil suit no order under Section 250 of the MPLRC has been passed.
6. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that well reasoned finding ascribed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, has not been appreciated by the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner has Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/25/2023 5:11:19 PM 3 placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P. No.416 of 2016 [Rajeshwari Bhatt and another vs. State of M.P. and others] and submitted that submitted that when a civil suit is pending adjudication, no interference by the revenue authorities is permissible.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is grossly misconceived, inasmuch as the order under Section 250 of the MPLRC was rightly passed by the Tahsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer even in absence of any statutory prohibition proceeded to pass the order dated 05-02-2018 and the same was rightly interfered with by the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 14-03-2019.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that demarcation of the property was carried out and the same was confirmed on 26-01-2016. Upon demarcation it was found that the present petitioner had encroached upon the property in question. The order of demarcation was not assailed by the present petitioner and accordingly in view of the order of demarcation an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC was moved by the respondent and the same was entertained by the Tahsildar. Thus, learned counsel for respondent submits that the writ petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard rival contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
10. A perusal of the records reflects that Tahsildar in view of demarcation report which was confirmed vide order dated 26-01-2016, entertained the application preferred by the respondent under Section 250 of the MPLRC. The order pertaining to confirmation of demarcation has not been assailed by the present petitioner and accordingly, the order under Section 250 of the MPLRC has been passed on an order pertaining to demarcation.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/25/2023 5:11:19 PM 411. The scope of section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code was dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1233/2020 (Sunita Bairagi and Ors. Vs. State of M.P.). This Court in para 33 in the case of Sunita Bairagi (supra) held as under:-
"33. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel has raised the issue of limitation and according to him by virtue of section 250 (1-a) (b) the period of limitation is 2 years from the date of dispossession in the case of Bhumiswami who is not covered by clause (a) or from the date on which the possession of such person became unauthorized, as the case may be. As per clause 250 (1-a) if a Bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law then under clause (b) he has to approach the Tahsildar within a period of 2 years and if any person unauthorizedly continues in possession of the land as Bhumiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code and his possession became authorized then also the limitation is 2 years for the Bhumiswami to approach the Tahsildar. In the present case, the respondent No.4 purchased the land in the year 2003 and got mutated its name in the revenue record. Thereafter, the land in question was included in the Scheme No.132 framed by the Indore Development Authority and the land was sought to be acquired by the State Govt. Only the respondent No.4 being the owner of the land challenged the notification by way of W.P.No.14065/2006 and succeeded up to the Supreme Court and finally got released the land by way of NOC dated 20.09.2016 for private development. This the date when the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/25/2023 5:11:19 PM 5 possession of the petitioners became unauthorized and they ceased to be entitled not to use the land under the provision of this Code and from this date, the limitation of 2 years would start, hence the respondent No.4 rightly filed an application under section 250 MPLRC before the Tahsildar within two years. After succeeding up to the Supreme Court and getting the land released the respondent No.4 applied f o r demarcation on 26.12.2016 and vide order dated 17.01.2017 the demarcation proceedings were concluded by disclosing the name of 60 occupants to be in possession of the land in question. The fact of the aforesaid possession by the 62 occupants came to the knowledge of the respondent No.4 during the demarcation proceeding and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Murlidhar vs. Board of Revenue (supra) the starting point for consideration of the period of limitation would be when the person found to be in authorized possession i.e. the date of order passed under section 129 of the Code. In view of the aforesaid, the application filed by the respondent No.4 is not barred by limitation and the learned authorities have not committed any error of law while entertaining the application."
[Emphasis supplied]
12. If the contentions as sought to be put forth in the present petition by the petitioner is considered, so far as Section 250 of the MPLRC is concerned, it nowhere stipulates that if a civil suit has been filed, revenue authorities under Section 250 of the MPLRC cannot proceed.
13. Thus, in absence of any statutory embargo, the Tahsildar as well Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/25/2023 5:11:19 PM 6 as Additional Commissioner did not commit any error in passing the impugned orders. The judgement relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Rajeshwari Bhatt (supra) is of no assistance, inasmuch as the said case pertains to proceedings of mutation. As a civil suit between the parties was pending, the parties therein were directed to maintain status quo till the suit is decided by the competent court.
14. Accordingly, the present petition having no substance, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ac Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/25/2023 5:11:19 PM