Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun vs Collector on 24 April, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 2276 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ARJUN S/O BHERUSINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM
BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKKHURD, DISTRICT:
DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHERUSINGH S/O SHERSINGH, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM
BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKKHURD, DISTRICT:
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NATHUSINGH S/O SHERSINGH, AGED ABOUT 73
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM
BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKKHURD, DISTRICT:
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DHEERAJ SINGH S/O NATHUSINGH, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O:
GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKKHURD,
DISTRICT: DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ASHISH CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. C O L L E C T O R DEWAS, DISTRICT: DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANUVIBHAGEEYA ADHIKARI (R.) ANUVIBHAGEEY
ADHIKARI KAARYALAY, SONKATCH, DISTRICT:
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TEHSILD AR , TEHSIL TONKKHURD, DISTRICT:
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BABULAL S/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. SORAMBAI W/O BABULAL, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 25-04-2023
14:16:19
2
R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD,
DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BABULAL S/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. REKHA D/O BABULAL, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD,
DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BABULAL S/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. MAKHAN S/O BABULAL, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD,
DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. BABULAL S/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. ASHOK S/O BABULAL, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD,
DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. BABULAL S/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. PAWAN S/O BABULAL, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD,
DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. PRAHLAD S/O KANHAIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM
BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD, DISTRICT
DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. VIKRAM S/O KANHAIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM
BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD, DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. RAMPRASAD S/O KANHAIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM
BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD, DISTRICT
DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. JAMNABAI W/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. ATMARAM S/O KANHAIYALAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL
TONKHURD, DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. JAMNABAI W/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 25-04-2023
14:16:19
3
THROUGH LRS. BHAGWANTA BAI W/O
KANHAIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O:
GRAM BISALKHEDI TEHSIL TONKHURD,
DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. JAMNABAI W/O KANHAIYALAL DECEASED
THROUGH LRS. AHIYA BAI W/O KANHAIYALAL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: GRAM BISALKHEDI
TEHSIL TONKHURD, DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners is heard on the question of admission. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Additional Collector, District Dewas affirming the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sonkatch, District Dewas who in turn had affirmed the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Tonk Khurd, District Dewas allowing an application under Section 131 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 filled by respondents The record of the case reveals that the respondents had filed an application under Section 131 of the Code, 1959 for grant of a right of way to them to access their land bearing survey No.322 through survey Nos.327, 328, 329 and 330 and by the side of survey No.331. The aforesaid lands belong to the petitioners. It was submitted that this route is the only route for respondents to approach their land which has been closed by petitioners as a result of which they cannot approached their land.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 25-04-2023 14:16:19 4The application was contested by petitioners by submitting that the route as has been contended by the respondents has never been in existence and that even otherwise there are alternate routes for respondents to approach their land. Thereafter, the evidence of the parties both oral as well as documentary was recorded and eventually the Tehsildar held that the disputed route is the only available route for respondents to approach their land. One of the two alternate routes pointed out by petitioners does not exist whereas the other route is in the shape of a narrow road. Consequently, the application preferred by petitioners was allowed by him. The said order has been maintained in appeal and revision having been preferred by petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the authorities below have themselves observed that there is another alternate route for respondents to approached their land but have yet illegally allowed the application preferred by respondents who had even otherwise not proved from their evidence that the disputed route as contended by them does exist. Since there was an alternate route available with the respondent's the application preferred by them could not have been allowed.
From the order passed by the Tehsildar it is apparent that the alternate route as contended by petitioners is only for a narrow road whereas as per the respondents, the disputed route is of such a nature from where a bullock cart, tractor and other material can go through to their land. Thus a narrow road as compared to the disputed route which is apparently much wider cannot be said to be an alternate route for respondents. The authorities below have extensively dealt with the evidence led by both the parties and have thereafter recording findings as recorded in their orders.
Signature Not VerifiedOn going through their findings, they do not appear to be illegal or Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 25-04-2023 14:16:19 5 perverse in any manner or being beyond the record. The authorities below have acted within the bounds of their jurisdiction and it cannot be said that they have in any manner acted beyond it. The findings recorded by them are pure findings of facts and are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality recorded in the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector.
The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Shilpa Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 25-04-2023 14:16:19