Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 21 June, 2024
1 WP-16690-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 21 st OF JUNE, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 16690 of 2024
(NANDRAM AND OTHERS
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND
OTHERS)
Appearance:
(SHRI AKASH SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS).
(SHRI MUKESH PARWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE).
(SHRI VISHAL BAHETI, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5/CAVEAT
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING).
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging orders dated 05.06.2024, 21.06.2022, 29.03.2023, 20.05.2023, 23.04.2024 and 19.06.2024.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has expressed anxiety that in terms of the impugned orders, the petitioners are being dispossessed and the dispossession will take place even today or in the next one or two days.
3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the demarcation proceedings dated 20.05.2023 were carried out in which proceedings, the petitioners were found to be in possession of land owned by the respondent No.5. The demarcation proceedings of 20.05.2023 are on record as Annexure P/8. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal/application in terms of Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'MPLRC') challenging the demarcation proceedings on the ground that the petitioners were neither heard nor were noticed during the demarcation proceedings. The said application was dealt with by the Sub Divisional Officer and was rejected, being barred by time in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-06- 2024 17:34:24 2 WP-16690-2024 terms of limitation provided under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC. Against the said order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P/7) passed by the SDO, petitioners filed a revision before the Additional Collector. In the intervening time, on the strength of the demarcation report dated 20.05.2023, the present respondent No.5 initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC for eviction of the petitioners. In the revision filed before the Additional Collector against the order Annexure P/7 passed by the SDO which was in terms of the Section 129(5) of the MPLRC, the Additional Collector passed an order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P/9) whereby the Additional Collector stayed the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC though, the said proceedings were not under challenge before the Additional Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.05.2024, the Additional Collector posted the matter for final hearing but directed that status quo on the land in question shall be maintained by the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once status quo was granted by the Additional Collector on 30.05.2024 and the matter was posted for 28.06.2024, in the intervening period, the present respondent No.5 submitted an application on 05.06.2024 and prayed for vacation of the interim stay on the proceedings of the Tehsildar and status quo which was granted on 26.04.2024 and 30.05.2024. The Additional Collector vacated the said stay vide order dated 05.06.2024 which is on record at page No. 38 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Additional Collector could not have taken up the case on 05.06.2024 after fixing the next date for 28.06.2024 without noticing the present petitioners. The main ground of attack by the petitioners is that the Additional Collector could Signature Not Verified not have passed the order dated 05.06.2024 in absence of the petitioners.
Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-06- 2024 17:34:243 WP-16690-2024
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that thereafter in a hasty manner, the Tehsildar has passed the final order in the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC and by order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) directed eviction of the petitioners from the land in question within three days. It is the case of the petitioners that the Additional Collector has misconducted the proceedings by fixing the next date for 28.06.2024 but taking up the case on an earlier date i.e. 05.06.2024 without noticing the present petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on caveat submits that the Additional Collector has not erred in passing the order dated 05.06.2024 because in the revision filed before the Additional Collector, there was no challenge to the proceedings instituted under Section 250 of the MPLRC, rather challenge originated from the order dated 20.05.2023 and not from the eviction proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC. Thus, the Additional Collector has only corrected this illegality which was committed in staying proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC which was not under challenge before the Collector. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that as per Section 129(8) of the MPLRC, no appeal or revision lies against the order passed by the SDO under Section 129(6) of the MPLRC. Thus, it is contended that the revision itself before the Additional Collector was not maintainable and the orders passed in the revision filed before the Additional Collector, which itself was not maintainable, are non-est. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal before the concerning appellate authority against the order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-06- 2024 17:34:24 4 WP-16690-2024 in the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC.
7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and has pointed out to paragraph 6 of the order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) wherein it is mentioned that the petitioners were given opportunity to lead evidence during the course of proceedings under Section 250 but they did not cross-examine the witnesses and their chance of evidence was closed. It is contended that the Tehsildar has duly conducted proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC which have been concluded by order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) which is an appealable order and petitioners can very well raise all the grounds by filing appeal before the appropriate appellate authority against the order Annexure P/10.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. In the present case, the sheet anchor of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Collector could not have vacated the stay granted on 30.05.2024 without hearing the present petitioners by taking up the matter before the next date fixed in presence of both the parties. However, when confronted with query by the Court as to how the very appeal before the Additional Collector was maintainable in view of the specific provisions of Section 129(8) of MPLRC, learned counsel for the petitioners could only submit that the demarcation proceedings were bad in law and Section 129(8) would not stop the petitioners from challenging illegal proceedings.
10. Section 129(8) of the MPLRC reads as under :
''Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 44 and 50. no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any order passed or proceedings taken under this section.''
11. The order Annexure P/7 dated 23.04.2024 passed by the SDO is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-06- 2024 17:34:24 5 WP-16690-2024 undisputedly an order disposing the application under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC filed by the present petitioners. The said application has been decided and thereafter no further remedy of appeal or revision under the MPLRC lies to the petitioners after suffering rejection under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC.
12. In view of the specific and clear provisions of Section 129(8) of MPLRC, it is crystal clear that the revision filed by the petitioners before the Additional Collector itself was not maintainable, though the petitioners could have remedy else where. The orders of status-quo and stay of proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC passed during the course of a revision which itself was not maintainable cannot be protected by this Court by exercising the writ jurisdiction. In other words, by accepting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court cannot put to life the interim orders passed by the Additional Collector in a revision which itself was not maintainable as per the provisions of MPLRC.
13. It is also relevant to mention here that after getting an order in terms of Section 129(5) of the MPLRC from the SDO on 23.04.2024 (Annexure P/7), the petitioners have filed a civil suit on 27.04.2024. The proceedings of the civil suit are on record as Annexure P/11. In the civil suit, the petitioners have raised similar contentions regarding illegality in demarcation proceedings dated 20.05.2023. They also moved an application under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of exparte stay on dispossession and for getting a statu-quo. The civil court vide order dated 20.05.2024 has refused to grant such exparte temporary injunction on the ground that the civil court is not exercising supervisory jurisdiction over revenue courts who are in seisin of the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-06- 2024 17:34:246 WP-16690-2024 Consequently, the application for grant of exparte status quo has been rejected by the civil court on 20.05.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that petitioners have not put this rejection order dated 20.05.2024 to challenge before any court till date on account of civil vacations. It is further submitted that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is pending before the civil court on which the next date is fixed on 04.07.2024.
14. Considering the position that the very revision filed by the petitioners before the Additional Collector was not maintainable in view of Section 129(8) of MPLRC and also looking to the position that the civil court has already refused to grant exparte injunction to the petitioners against dispossession and that the order dated 20.05.2024 has not been put to challenge by the petitioners till so far, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.
15. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed.
16. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the grounds against demarcation proceedings dated 20.05.2023 in the pending civil suit and this order will not come in the way of the petitioners in prosecuting challenge to demarcation proceedings pending before the civil court. The petitioners are also set at liberty to file statutory appeal against the order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Tehsildar in the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC.
17. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE vidya Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 21-06- 2024 17:34:24