Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shambhu Alias Shambhudayal Maali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 22653 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHAMBHU ALIAS SHAMBHUDAYAL MAALI S/O LATE
DAULA MAALI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O KASBA BAROADA DISTRICT
SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.C. CHANDIL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. KAMLI BAI W/O LATE SHRI NATHYA.
4. BALRAM S/O LATE SHRI NATHYA.
5. MUKESH S/O LATE SHRI NATHYA.
6. MANGILAL S/O LATE SHRI NATHYA
ALL RESIDENT OF CHANDRA SAGAR KE PASS KASBA
BARODA TAHSIL BARODA DISTRICT SHEOPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(a) Order annexure P-1 passed by the Collector 2 Sheopur may kindly be quashed.
(b) Any other suitable writ order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be granted."
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner's father Daula and thereafter petitioner were allegedly in possession of the land in question bearing survey No.1268 admeasuring 12 biswa at Baroda District Sheopur. In the revenue record, name of Nathya, the father of respondents No.3 to 6 was recorded as Bhumiswami of the land and therefore, an application purportedly under Sections 115 and 116 of MPLRC was filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar, Baroda to record his possession in the revenue record. Tahsildar considered his application and registered the case and issued proclamation. Thereafter, Nathya appeared and denied the possession of the petitioner. Tahsildar passed the order dated 31-01-2011 to record possession of the petitioner in column No.12 of revenue record/Khasra.
3. It appears that respondents No.3 to 6 (through their father Daula) filed an application under Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Collector Sheopur and prayed to delete the name of petitioner from the Khasra entries. Said application was allowed. After taking report from Tahsildar, Baroda, an order to delete name of the petitioner from the Khasra entries has been passed on 02-05-2023. Therefore, this petition has been preferred before this Court.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after complying the procedure prescribed and Bhoo Abhilekh Niyamawali, name of petitioner has been recorded as possessor of the disputed property and when after due enquiry, Tahsildar passed the order then Collector had no authority to set aside the said order. Collector has 3 committed grave illegality in giving permission to delete possession of the petitioner that too after 12 years.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State on advance notice opposed the submissions and submitted that this is a case where very cleverly petitioner got the name recorded in his favour as possessor of the suit property. When this fact came to the knowledge of legal representatives of Nathya, then they objected to it and moved an appropriate application. As per the jurisdiction vested under Section 32 of the MPLRC, Collector in the interest of justice and to check the abuse of process of law can pass such order. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dakkho Bai Vs. State of M.P. And others, 2015 (3) MPLJ 202 and referred the inherent powers of revenue Courts.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
7. This is a case where the petitioner who was an encroacher over the land in question is trying to get advantage of his status as alleged possessor. Interestingly, an application was preferred by the petitioner under Sections 115 and 116 of MPLRC before Tahsildar which is the provision only invoked for correction of arithmetical/clerical error and not for recording possession of any possessor, therefore, under the garb of that application which appears prima facie innocuous yet misplaced had the wider meaning. Original proceedings stand vitiated by the act of petitioner and tacit connivance or ignorance of Tahsildar, Baroda (who was posted at the relevant point of time) thus such illegal act cannot be countenanced in any manner. Even if this order of Collector on any pretext (although does not appear to be available) is quashed, then it would result in restoration of an illegal order. This Court in the case of Munna Lal Yadav Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another, 2006(3) 4 MPHT 39 has discussed the said principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL and others Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727.
8. In the given set of facts when illegality came to the notice of Collector, then he rightly passed the impugned order while exercising inherent power of revenue Courts and passed the order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law. Said power is very exhaustive in nature. Section 32 of the MPLRC is reiterated as under:
"32. Inherent power of Revenue Courts.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court."
9. Perusal of the said provision reveals that revenue Courts have inherent power to make such order as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law. Here, exercise of inherent power is just and proper because Tahsildar passed an illegal and arbitrary order. Said aspect has been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dakkho Bai (supra).
10. In view of the above facts situation, no premium can be given to the mischief of petitioner allegedly in collusion with the then Tahsildar and other revenue officers of the concerned jurisdiction.
11. Petition sans merits and being misconceived is hereby dismissed.
Respondents No.3 to 6 are at liberty to get their legitimate possession forthwith for which Revenue authorities shall cooperate.
12. Disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Anil* ANIL KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
CHAURASIY
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae27e 84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f, pseudonym=F7E569EA2A8955818DF870B0C5076 4B46C526E80, A serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4A29 6DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2023.09.15 19:53:49 +05'30'