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

Kaluram @ Kalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 October, 2024

Author: Vishal Dhagat

Bench: Vishal Dhagat

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52385




                                                                1                           WP-20907-2024
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                                  ON THE 21st OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 20907 of 2024
                                                  KALURAM @ KALU
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Bhupendra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
                              Shri Amit Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

                                                                    ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to consider and decide his pending representation contained in Annexure-P/7.

2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Kotwar who has been given land by Malgujar/Nabab. It is submitted that since petitioner was given land in view of services rendered by him, therefore, petitioner ought to have been declared bhumiswami of said land. It is also submitted by counsel appearing for petitioner that land was not given by State Government to Malgujar. Malgujar has not given the land to petitioner which he got from State Government, therefore, circular of State Government dated 03.03.2010 is not applicable in his case. Further he placed reliance on order passed by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.585/2022 dated 04.06.2022 wherein direction has been given to Collector to consider the representation of aggrieved persons without reference to order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 22-10-2024 17:35:15 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52385 2 WP-20907-2024 Principal Secretary dated 28.02.2017.

3. Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that representation of petitioner shall be considered by Collector in accordance with law.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. In identical case direction has been given to Collector to consider the representation and decide it in accordance with law. Case of petitioner is similar to the facts which are available in W.A. No.585/2022.

6. In view of same, writ petition is disposed off directing Collector to consider and decide representation of petitioner by passing reasonable and speaking order if circular issued by Principal Secretary dated 28.02.2017 is not applicable in case of petitioner. Decision be taken within period of six months from date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today.

7. No opinion is expressed on merits of the case.

8. With aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed off.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 22-10-2024 17:35:15