Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheikh Dabbal Bahna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 3302 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHEIKH DABBAL BAHNA S/O SHRI SHEIKH POORAN
BAHNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O AZAD WARD
GOTEGAON DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.S. SAHU - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MINISTRY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JABALPUR
DIVISION JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. C O L L E C T O R N A R S I N G H P U R DISTT
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE
D E P A R T M E N T DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ABDUL RAJJAK S/O SHEIKH MURTUJA SADAR
WAKF JAMA MASJID COMMITTEE GOTEGAON
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NO.1 TO 4 BY SHRI P.N. VERMA - PANEL LAWYER)
(NO.5 BY SHRI D.K. SONI - ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
ORDER
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/5/2023 10:35:42 AM 2 This petition is languishing to see its fate since 2019 and listed today under caption "Held-up Cases"; the pleadings are complete; learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue it finally and therefore the petition is heard finally.
The disgruntled petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 06.05.2019 (Annexure-P/7) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-P/5) passed by respondent No.4.
Primarily, the order dated 09.03.2018 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in a proceeding initiated by him on the anvil of a complaint made by respondent No.5 alleging that under the garb of Patta, the petitioner was trying to encroach upon the Wakf land. Indeed, in those proceedings, the petitioner was called to appear before the authority to explain whether he was an encroacher or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sanguinely submits that the petitioner made his appearance before the SDO and tried to convince that he was not encroacher and in fact occupying the land by virtue of a Patta granted to him by the State authorities. Copy of Patta is made appendage to this petition as Annexure-P/1.
The main thrust of challenge to the impugned orders is solely based on the ground that although the proceeding was initiated by the revenue authorities in respect of determining the fact whether the petitioner was an encroacher or not, but lo and behold, in the said proceeding the SDO has cancelled the Patta granted to the petitioner that too without giving any opportunity of hearing or issuing notice vis-a-vis consideration of validity of Patta. As per learned Signature Not Verified counsel, apparently the order passed in that regard is in utter violation of the Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/5/2023 10:35:42 AM 3 principle of natural justice and thus the order being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside.
In contrast, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions made at the behest of the petitioner, submit that in a proceeding initiated by the revenue authorities, the petitioner did appear, in which validity of Patta granted to the petitioner was enquired about and if it was validly granted, whether any conditions of Patta are violated or not. Going farther, Shri Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that not only about the encroachment, but also about validity of Patta, objection had been raised by respondent No.5 before the authority that the petitioner was not entitled to get any land by way of Patta inasmuch as he was not a landless person and relevant documents showing petitioner possesses other land were also produced. He further submits that report was called in which it was found that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the Patta, therefore, SDO has infallibly cancelled the Patta earlier granted by him in favour of the petitioner. As per the learned counsel for the respondents, there is nothing wrong done by the authorities and as the petitioner was not only well aware of encroachment proceeding but also about proceeding conducted to ascertain the validity of Patta and infringement of its terms and conditions.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties and also perused the record.
Indeed, the order of SDO reveals that the SDO has clearly mentioned that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing in the proceeding. The proceeding further reveals that it was triggered for ascertaining the validity of Patta and its use whether any terms or conditions were violated by the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/5/2023 10:35:42 AM 4 or not. As per the report submitted by the revenue officer, Patta was granted to the petitioner for residential purpose, but it was used for commercial purpose too. The the terms of Patta i.e. condition No.2 very categorically provides that Patta was purely granted for residential purpose, but as per report, it is seen that said land was used for commercial purpose also. The SDO, therefore, cancelled the Patta on the ground that the terms and conditions of the Patta have been violated. An appeal was preferred against the order of SDO and memo of appeal is also available on record, from which it is gathered that the petitioner did not assail the order of SDO on the ground that the terms and conditions of Patta have not been violated by him. There contains nothing in whole memo of appeal that the land was not used by the petitioner for commercial purpose. The appellate authority thereafter passed a detailed order considering all aspects of the matter and also observing that opportunity of hearing was also provided to the petitioner and therefore the order of SDO did not hit by the principle of natural justice.
Even in the memo of petition, nowhere it is stated that the finding given by the SDO and also by the Additional Commissioner is contrary to factual position and perverse, nor is it mentioned that the petitioner has not violated any terms or conditions of the Patta granted to him. It is a trite law that in each and every case, the principle of natural justice is not applied nor can every case be decided with a straitjacket formula by applying the principle of natural justice. In the existing factual position, when the petitioner has nowhere stated about not violating the terms and conditions of Patta, had he been granted opportunity of hearing that would not have changed the position. Finding violation of any terms and conditions, the authority which had granted Patta can very well cancel it. In the case at hand, there is no dispute with regard to competency of authority Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/5/2023 10:35:42 AM 5 cancelling the Patta granted to the petitioner.
In the given situation, when violation of terms and conditions of Patta is apparent, nothing more is required to be delved into. Thus, I am of the opinion that the authorities have rightly considered the case of the petitioner for cancelling the Patta. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, therefore, no interference is warranted.
The petition being sans substance, is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Sudesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/5/2023 10:35:42 AM