Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajendra Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2022

Author: Rohit Arya

Bench: Rohit Arya, Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                  1
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                               BEFORE
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                                  &
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                          ON THE 2nd OF AUGUST, 2022

                        WRIT APPEAL No. 930 of 2022

        Between:-
        RAJENDRA DUBEY S/O LT SHRI GOPILAL
        DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        CHAIRMAN KILA ANDAR KARTIK CHAWK
        VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....APPELLANT
        (BY SHRI PRASHANT SINGH KAURAV-ADVOCATE )

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
        DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      COLLECTOR,   VIDISHA DISTRICT            VIDISHA
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      T E H S I L D A R , TEHSIL VIDISHA DISTRICT
        VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      SUB   DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND    LAND
        ACQUISITION OFFICER, VIDISHA DISTRICT
        VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI M.P.S. RAGHUVANSHI-ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
        GENERAL )

      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
passed the following:
                                   ORDER

Appellant styling himself as title holder of the land in question alongwith his two brothers by virtue of judgment and decree dated 20/10/2015 has 2 approached this Court.

Appellant and his two brothers had filed a suit against the Municipal Council, Vidisha which was decreed by the First Appellate Court. The said judgment and decree was unsuccessfully challenged by the Municipal Council, Vidisha (respondent therein) by way of filing Second Appeal No.44/2016 before this Court.

In the revenue record, name of one brother namely Dayashankar is recorded as owner but petitioner's name and that of Lrs. of the deceased brother have not been recorded. Appellant appears to have moved an application seeking mutation/ correction in the revenue record under Sections 115 and 116 r/w Section 32 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. The said application is pending consideration.

Appellant has approached the writ Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India with an innocuous prayer in the form of direction to the Sub Divisional Officer for correction of the entry in the revenue record. The writ Court vide order dated 18th July, 2022 passed in W.P. No.15813/2022, found that in the said application, appellant has not arrayed necessary parties i.e. Lrs. of the deceased brother hence, application was found to be incomplete therefore, declined to issue direction as sought for.

Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he is prepared and ready to implead Lrs. of the deceased brother as respondents within a week from today hence, a direction may be issued to the SDO for expeditious disposal of the pending application as urgency involved because the land in question has been acquired by the land acquisition officer and process of payment of compensation is going on.

Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General on advance 3 notice, does not have any objection in the obtaining facts and circumstances, if this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

Accordingly, order dated 18th July, 2022 passed in W.P. No.15813/2022 by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) Appellant shall move an application for impleadment of necessary parties i.e. Lrs. of deceased brother as respondents in the application under Sections 115 and 116 r/w Section 32 of MPLRC pending before the SDO;
(ii) The SDO is directed to allow the application and shall permit the appellant to implead necessary parties and after impleadment, the SDO shall decide the application pending under Sections 115 and 116 r/w Section 32 of MPLRC in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of service and appearance of the respondent in person or through their counsel.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

                  (ROHIT ARYA)                                 (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                  JUDGE                                                         JUDGE

            vc

VARSHA
CHATURVEDI
2022.08.03 10:25:43
+05'30'