Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hajari Banjara vs Govind Singh N B S/O Shri Sirnamsingh ... on 22 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 7565 of 2025
HAJARI BANJARA & ORS.
Versus
GOVIND SINGH & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Anand Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.P. Rathi - Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.04.2025
Delivered on : 22.04.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by SDO Kurwai District Vidisha whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents being aggrieved by the demarcation dated 19.06.2016 conducted in case No.10A/70/16-17 under Section 250 MPLRC, 1959 was allowed and possession of the disputed land was directed to be handed over to the respondents in police custody. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 17.08.2020 was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that an application under Section 250 of MPLRC was preferred by the respondents against the petitioners before Tehsildar Kurwai to the effect that respondents are Bhumiswami of land bearing survey Nos. 266/1/2 rakwa 0.795 hectare, 266/2/2 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 266/3 Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:54:39 PM 2 rakwa 0.673 hectare, 285/1/2 rakwa 0.314 hectare, 285/5 rakwa 1.620 hectare, 266/2/1 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 285/4 rakwa 1.528 hectare, 285/6 rakwa 0.42 hectare, 285/2/2 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 285/3 rakwa 0.463 hectare and 266/1/2 rakwa 0.794 hectare situated at village Ghosua Tehsil Kurwai District Vidisha. In the said case, demarcation was conducted on 19.06.2016 in which 0.985 hectare land was found to be in possession of Hajari, 0.277 hectare land was found to be in possession of Bhagwat, 0.251 hectare land was found to be in possession of Prathvi, 0.270 hectare land was found to be in possession of Pratap, 0.284 hectare land was found to be in possession of Sukhram, 0.209 hectare land was found to be in possession of Sher Singh. On the basis of said demarcation, the possession of the land which was found to be in illegal possession of petitioners which were directed to be handed over to the respondents and thus handed over, but the petitioners again illegally possessed the said land. Thereafter, the respondents again filed an application for re-demarcation of the said land. On the basis of the application filed by the respondents, case bearing No.10/A-70/2016-17 was registered. During pendency of the said case, the respondents had preferred an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC. Tehildar while deciding the said application vide order 08.04.2019 had dismissed the said case on the ground that with regard to possession on the disputed land, proceedings have already been concluded before Civil Court. Against the said order, the respondents had preferred an appeal before the SDO which was allowed while rejecting the order passed by Tehsildar holding that the present case is not hit by the principles of res judicata and illegal possession of petitioners found on the land which is in the ownership of respondents was directed to be removed in police custody. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:54:39 PM 3 Bhopal Division Bhopal which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Assailing the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the SDO, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed by the SDO and the Additional Commissioner are illegal and contrary to law. The said orders have been passed without taking into account the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC. Thus, both the orders deserve to be quashed.
4. It is further submitted that the respondents had preferred a civil suit bearing No. 25A/11 before Civil Judge, Class -I Kurwai District Vidisha for declaration, possession and mesne profit in respect of land bearing survey Nos. 266/1/1 rakwa 0.794 hectare, 266/3/1 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 266/3/2 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 266/2 rakwa 0.679 hectare, 285/5 rakwa 1.620 hectare, 285/3 rakwa 1.463 hectare, 286/1/2 rakwa 0.836 hectare and 285/4 area 1.570 hectare situated at village Ghosua Tehsil Kurwai District Vidisha which was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.07.2012. Against the said judgment, an appeal was also preferred by the respondents before 2 nd Additional District Judge, Kurwai which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 23.05.2015, therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to be title holder of the said land.
5. It is further submitted that an application under Section 250 of MPLRC can only be filed within two years from the date of dispossession by a person who has been illegally dispossessed whereas the petitioners were title holder and in continuous possession of the said land since the time of their forefather. With the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that both the orders passed by the SDO and the Additional Commissioner be set-aside.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:54:39 PM 46. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders passed by the SDO as well as the Additional Commissioner requires no interference inasmuch as the order of SDO was passed while appreciating the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC. In the present case as the respondents were dispossessed from the property in question, resultantly, an application under Section 250 of MPLRC was filed which was rightly allowed by the SDO.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, Tahsildar was approached by the respondents by way of an application under Section 250 of MPLRC. Before the Tahsildar, dispute was to the effect that as to whether the present petitioners had encroached upon the disputed land. The Tahsildar rejected the application vide order dated 08.04.2019 on the ground that the present case is hit by the principle of res judicata. The said order was assailed before the Sub Divisional Officer. The SDO vide order dated 17.08.2020, set aside the order of Tahsildar with a direction that illegal possession of petitioners found on the land which is of the ownership of respondents be removed in police custody. The said findings of SDO has been upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal while passing the impugned order dated 13.12.2024.
9. From perusal of record, it appears that the application under section 250 of MPLRC filed by the respondents against the petitioners before Tehsildar was with regard to survey Nos. 266/1/1, 266/1/2, 266/2/2, 266/3, 285/1/2, 285/2/2, 285/3, 285/4, 285/5, 285/6 and the suit filed by the respondents for declaration, possession and mesne profit in respect of land bearing survey Nos. 266/1/1 rakwa 0.794 hectare, 266/3/1 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 266/3/2 rakwa 0.836 hectare, 266/2 rakwa 0.679 hectare, 285/5 rakwa 1.620 hectare, 285/3 rakwa Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:54:39 PM 5 1.463 hectare, 286/1/2 rakwa 0.836 hectare and 285/4 area 1.570 hectare which was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.07.2012. In the demarcation conducted by the Tehsildar on the basis of application filed by the respondents under Section 250 MPLRC, on some portion of land, the possession of petitioners was found. Since with regard to survey No. 266/1/1, 285/5, 285/3 and 285/4 which were common before the civil court and revenue authorities and the suit filed by the respondents for declaration of title had been dismissed, therefore, the respondents cannot be held to be title holder of those lands. Thus, the demarcation proceedings conducted by the Tehsildar on the application filed by the respondents with regard to the aforesaid survey numbers, in which the petitioners were found to be in illegal possession of the lands belonged to said survey numbers, as a result of which, they were evicted from the aforesaid lands are hereby quashed. The aforesaid exercised conducted by the Tehsildar with regard to other survey numbers are hereby upheld.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
ojha JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 4/22/2025
6:54:39 PM