Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs Halka Patwari Village Gada Lolar Singh on 23 January, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3457 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. KULDEEP SINGH S/O KRISHNABAHADUR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE DEVRAHA,
TEH.GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. MONIKA SINGH W/O SHRI KULDEEP SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE-DEVRAHA, TEHSIL-
GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT-SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DEVRAJ SINGH(MINOR) S/O SHRI KULDEEP
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. MONIKA
SINGH W/O SHRI KULDEEP SINGH VILLAGE-
DEVRAHA, TEHSIL-GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT-
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SANSKRITI SINGH(MINOR) D/O SHRI KULDEEP
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. MONIKA
SINGH W/O SHRI KULDEEP SINGH VILLAGE-
DEVRAHA, TEHSIL-GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT-
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
HALKA PATWARI VILLAGE GADA LOLAR SINGH S/O
NOT MENTIONED OCCUPATION: NIL VILLAGE GADA
LOLAR SINGH, TEH.GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRARTHANA
SURYAVANSHI
Signing time: 1/25/2024
5:59:55 PM
2
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Additional Collector, Sidhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is husband of petitioner No.2 and father of petitioners No.3 and 4. The petitioners No.3 and 4 are minor children aged 9 years and 11 years receptively.
3 . An application was submitted by petitioner No.1 for partition of holding in Survey No.1174/2/1. The total holding of petitioner No.1 was 0.1300 hectare out of which after partition 0.0200 hectare each was to be given to petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The said partition was allowed by the Tahsildar on 05.04.2017.
4. Later on, it was found by the Halka Patwari that the said partition was of a very small holding and seems to be artificial partition because the land is under acquisition of Railways. It was observed by the Halka Patwari that this artificial partition seems to have been carried out just to create very small plots in the land proposed to be acquired so that the land holders of small holdings may get higher compensation to be calculated as per small plots of land. On these allegations and contentions, Halka Patwari filed an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer challenging the partition.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer decided the appeal vide order Annexure P/2 dated 18.01.2022. The appellate authority held that partition appears to be contrary to the provisions of Section 178 of MPLRC and seems to be malicious just to carve out smaller plots to get higher compensation as and when the compensation of land would be assessed. However, the Sub- Divisional Officer did not exercise appellate jurisdiction, but exercised inherent Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 1/25/2024 5:59:55 PM 3 powers under Section 32 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, which vests power in Revenue Courts to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court.
6. In exercise of power under Section 32 of MPLRC, the Sub Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar to take the matter in review in terms of Section 51 MPLRC and if violation of provision of Section 178 is found in the matter, then to take necessary action accordingly.
7. The petitioners filed revision against this order before the Additional Collector, which has been decided by order Annexure P/3. The Additional Collector has not found any error in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and has dismissed the revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appeal at the instance o f Halka Patwari was not maintainable and Halka Patwari has no locus to file appeal against a partition effected between members of a family. The logic adopted by the Revenue Courts that partition was carried out to get higher compensation is ridiculous and cannot be upheld.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that so far as query made by this Court on 21.12.2023 is concerned. The said issue has already been decided by this Court in M.P No.668/2022 decided 21.11.2023. It is stated that in the said case this Court already held that the SDO did not entertain the appeal filed by the respondent. Rather the SDO has exercised suo moto inherent powers under Section 32 of MPLRC.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the ground taken by the petitioners that Halka Patwari was not aggrieved person and hence, he had no locus to file appeal under Section 44 is devoid of merit. It is for the simple reason that the Sub Divisional Officer did not exercise Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 1/25/2024 5:59:55 PM 4 appellate power under Section 44 while passing the order Annexure P/2, but exercised inherent powers under Section 32.
11. The Sub Divisional Officer exercised inherent power under Section 3 2 MPLRC, being superior Court of Tahsildar. He was duly empowered to direct the Tahsildar to take the matter in review and decide whether the partition in the present case amounts to abuse of process of Court or violate the provision of Section 178 or 178A MPLRC.
12. On a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy that why partition was carried out of a land, which is already proposed to be acquired for Railways. However, without dilating on this aspect any further, I am of the opinion that no definitive prejudicial order against the interests of the petitioners have been passed by the Revenue Courts. The Revenue Courts have only directed the Tahsildar to take the matter in review under Section 51 and to consider whether there is abuse of process of the Revenue Courts and whether Sections 178 and 178 A have been violated while effecting partition.
1 3 . In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders Annexures P/2 and P/3, consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to cost.
14. However, without parting with the case, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Tahsildar that the petitioners shall be duly heard before passing any order in review proceedings.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Prar Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 1/25/2024 5:59:55 PM 5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 1/25/2024 5:59:55 PM