Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Sabo vs Ramji Lal on 22 July, 2022

Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal

Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal

                                                       1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2022

                                         MISC. PETITION No. 3328 of 2020

                             Between:-
                             SMT. SABO W/O LATE SHRI MANNU, AGED
                             ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION-HOUSEWIFE
                             R/O VILLAGE KASHIPUR TEHSIL NARWAR
                             DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                             (BY SHRI SUMANT MSIHRA- ADVOCATE )

                             AND

                             RAMJI LAL S/O SHRI LALA RAM BAGHEL,
                             AGED   ABOUT     50   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                             AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE JETPUR TEHSIL
                             NARVAR DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
                             (BY SHRI K.K.SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE )

                           Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
               following:
                                                        ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, dated 4.11.2020 passed in Appeal No.182/2020-21 (Sabo Wd/o Mannu Vs. Ramjilal).

In brief facts of the case are that respondent Ramjilal preferred an application under Section 178 of the MPLRC for partition of holding. On the Signature Notapplication Verified of the respondent, Tahsildar directed Revenue Inspector to carry Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD out Batankan on the basis of possession. Thereafter, Revenue Inspector by Signing time: 23-07-2022 10:03:14 AM 2 Annexure P/2 prepared a Fard Batawara and submitted it before the Tahsildar which was objected by the parties concerned. By allowing the objection, Tahsildar again ordered Revenue Inspector to prepare Fard Batwara after going on the spot along with Patwari. On that order, Revenue Inspector prepared a Fard Batwara as Annexure P/4. On the basis of subsequent Fard Batwara, Tahsildar Narwar passed an order on 5.12.2017 and is of the opinion that there is a dispute relating to Fard Batwara and due to this Fard Batwara a dispute may arose as both the parties are not in agreement with the aforesaid Fard Batwara and rejected the application for Fard Batwara under Section 178 of the respondent and matter was closed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 5.12.2017, respondent preferred an appeal before the SDO, Karera, Appellate Court is of the opinion that Tahsildar should have passed an order of partition of holding under Section 178 after hearing the parties. The ground of rejection of the application that a dispute may arose between the parties is not sustainable and affirmed the original Fard Batwara dated 4.8.2017 and directed that as per Fard Batwara dated 4.8.2017 revenue record be corrected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the SDO, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which affirmed the order of SDO. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

On going through the certified copy of aforesaid documents, it is abundantly clear that first Fard Batwara on the objection of the parties was rejected by the Tahsildar on 12.9.2017 and he has directed Revenue Inspector Signature Not Verified to go on the spot and again prepare Fard Batwara. Thereafter Revenue Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 23-07-2022 10:03:14 AM Inspector prepared another Fard Batwara, Annexure P/4. Again Tahsildar by its 3 order dated 5.12.2017 is of the opinion that parties are not in agreement with the aforesaid Fard Batwara and there is likelihood of a dispute, hence, he rejected the aforesaid application of the respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that he submitted objections which were allowed and again Fard Batwara was ordered. That was not challenged by the respondent before the SDO. He has challenged the order of Tahsildar dated 5.12.2017 by which his application under Section 178 was dismissed.

Looking to the aforesaid circumstances, when initial Fard Batwara was not accepted by the Tahsildar and fresh Fard Batwara was ordered and thereafter due to dispute and non-agreement of the parties application of the respondent was dismissed, in these situations, by allowing the petition, impugned orders passed by the SDO and Additional Commissioner are set aside and case is remanded back to the Tahsildar to pass a fresh order on Fard Batwara within three months after giving notice to the parties.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-